fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2016
6th edition, Toruń, Poland, June 21, 2016
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («Known» models, StateSpace)
Last Updated
June 30, 2016

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal(PAR) do cope efficiently with the StateSpace examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Known» models.

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in termsof both memory and execution time.The x-axis corresponds to the challenging tool where the y-axes represents Tapaal(PAR)' performances. Thus, points below the diagonal of a chart denote comparisons favorables to the tool whileothers corresponds to situations where the challenging tool performs better.

You might also find plots out of the range that denote the case were at least one tool could not answer appropriately (error, time-out, could not compute or did not competed).

Tapaal(PAR) versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(PAR) and 525 for ITS-Tools, so there are 525 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(PAR) to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(PAR) ITS-Tools Both tools   Tapaal(PAR) ITS-Tools
Computed OK 12 178 71   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 55 206
Error detected 0 45 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 134 87 143 Times tool wins 69 192


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal(PAR) versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(PAR) and 525 for LTSMin, so there are 525 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(PAR) to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(PAR) LTSMin Both tools   Tapaal(PAR) LTSMin
Computed OK 0 93 83   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 65 111
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 92 0 185 Times tool wins 64 112


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal(PAR) versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(PAR) and 525 for Marcie, so there are 525 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(PAR) to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(PAR) Marcie Both tools   Tapaal(PAR) Marcie
Computed OK 1 173 82   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 83 173
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 119 112 158 Times tool wins 74 182


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal(PAR) versus pnmc

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(PAR) and 525 for pnmc, so there are 525 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(PAR) to pnmc are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(PAR) pnmc Both tools   Tapaal(PAR) pnmc
Computed OK 0 143 83   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 73 153
Error detected 1 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 144 0 133 Times tool wins 67 159


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal(PAR) versus PNXDD

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(PAR) and 525 for PNXDD, so there are 525 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(PAR) to PNXDD are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(PAR) PNXDD Both tools   Tapaal(PAR) PNXDD
Computed OK 16 29 67   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 55 57
Error detected 1 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 30 17 247 Times tool wins 77 35


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal(PAR) versus Smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(PAR) and 525 for Smart, so there are 525 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(PAR) to Smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(PAR) Smart Both tools   Tapaal(PAR) Smart
Computed OK 40 74 43   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 47 110
Error detected 1 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 74 38 203 Times tool wins 64 93


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal(PAR) versus Tapaal(EXP)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(PAR) and 525 for Tapaal(EXP), so there are 525 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(PAR) to Tapaal(EXP) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(PAR) Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   Tapaal(PAR) Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 0 19 83   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 0 102
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 19 1 258 Times tool wins 22 80


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal(PAR) versus Tapaal(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(PAR) and 525 for Tapaal(SEQ), so there are 525 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(PAR) to Tapaal(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(PAR) Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   Tapaal(PAR) Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 2 14 81   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 7 90
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 3 263 Times tool wins 30 67


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal(PAR) versus ydd-pt

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(PAR) and 525 for ydd-pt, so there are 525 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(PAR) to ydd-pt are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(PAR) ydd-pt Both tools   Tapaal(PAR) ydd-pt
Computed OK 44 0 39   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 62 21
Error detected 1 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 44 277 Times tool wins 76 7


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart