fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2015
Bruxelles, Belgium, June 23, 2015
TAPAAL(MC) compared to other tools («All» models, ReachabilityComputeBounds)
Last Updated
August 19, 2015

Introduction

This page presents how TAPAAL(MC) do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityComputeBounds examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» 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(MC)' 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(MC) versus GreatSPN-Meddly

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for TAPAAL(MC) and 929 for GreatSPN-Meddly, so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TAPAAL(MC) to GreatSPN-Meddly are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) GreatSPN-Meddly Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) GreatSPN-Meddly
Computed OK 69 145 134   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 73 0 228 Times tool wins 142 206
Error detected 2 70 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 169 98 252 Times tool wins 151 197


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

TAPAAL(MC) versus LoLA2.0

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for TAPAAL(MC) and 929 for LoLA2.0, so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TAPAAL(MC) to LoLA2.0 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) LoLA2.0 Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) LoLA2.0
Computed OK 0 415 203   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 33 585
Error detected 2 1 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 414 0 7 Times tool wins 97 521


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

TAPAAL(MC) versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for TAPAAL(MC) and 929 for LTSMin, so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TAPAAL(MC) to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) LTSMin Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) LTSMin
Computed OK 203 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 626 0 Times tool wins 203 0
Error detected 4 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 419 301 2 Times tool wins 203 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

TAPAAL(MC) versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for TAPAAL(MC) and 929 for Marcie, so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TAPAAL(MC) to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) Marcie Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) Marcie
Computed OK 66 232 137   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 190 245
Error detected 2 54 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 153 236 268 Times tool wins 169 266


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

TAPAAL(MC) versus TAPAAL(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for TAPAAL(MC) and 929 for TAPAAL(SEQ), so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TAPAAL(MC) to TAPAAL(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) TAPAAL(SEQ) Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) TAPAAL(SEQ)
Computed OK 0 415 203   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 11 607
Error detected 4 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 411 0 10 Times tool wins 141 477


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

TAPAAL(MC) versus TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for TAPAAL(MC) and 929 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR), so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TAPAAL(MC) to TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)
Computed OK 64 13 139   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 125 91
Error detected 4 60 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 44 39 377 Times tool wins 151 65


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

TAPAAL(MC) versus TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for TAPAAL(MC) and 929 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ), so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TAPAAL(MC) to TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)
Computed OK 45 76 158   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 140 139
Error detected 2 135 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 178 14 243 Times tool wins 109 170


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart