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

Introduction

This page presents how TAPAAL(MC) do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireabilitySimple 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 Cunf

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for TAPAAL(MC) and 929 for Cunf, 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 Cunf are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) Cunf Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) Cunf
Computed OK 421 14 145   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 351 301 Times tool wins 445 135
Error detected 3 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 41 98 18 Times tool wins 449 131


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 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 441 4 125   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 73 0 228 Times tool wins 534 36
Error detected 3 189 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 13 337 46 Times tool wins 544 26


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 ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for TAPAAL(MC) and 929 for ITS-Tools, 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 ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) ITS-Tools Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) ITS-Tools
Computed OK 159 127 407   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 468 225
Error detected 3 14 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 13 335 46 Times tool wins 464 229


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 5 55 561   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 83 538
Error detected 3 5 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 52 0 7 Times tool wins 194 427


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 12 58 554   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 476 148
Error detected 3 12 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 55 301 4 Times tool wins 449 175


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 252 93 314   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 529 130
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 470 52 Times tool wins 515 144


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 50 566   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 61 555
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 47 0 12 Times tool wins 364 252


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 264 0 302   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 380 186
Error detected 3 14 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 253 59 Times tool wins 448 118


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 206 2 360   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 403 165
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 209 57 Times tool wins 414 154


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