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

Introduction

This page presents how TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityBounds 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-OTF(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-OTF(PAR) versus GreatSPN-Meddly

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) 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-OTF(PAR) to GreatSPN-Meddly are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) GreatSPN-Meddly Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) GreatSPN-Meddly
Computed OK 67 110 125   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 73 0 228 Times tool wins 125 177
Error detected 22 116 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 180 116 234 Times tool wins 130 172


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-OTF(PAR) versus LoLA2.0

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) 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-OTF(PAR) to LoLA2.0 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) LoLA2.0 Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) LoLA2.0
Computed OK 0 420 192   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 47 565
Error detected 22 9 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 407 0 7 Times tool wins 60 552


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-OTF(PAR) versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) 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-OTF(PAR) to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) LTSMin Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) LTSMin
Computed OK 192 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 626 0 Times tool wins 192 0
Error detected 22 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 412 301 2 Times tool wins 192 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-OTF(PAR) versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) 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-OTF(PAR) to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) Marcie Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) Marcie
Computed OK 41 242 151   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 161 273
Error detected 22 30 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 153 245 261 Times tool wins 119 315


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-OTF(PAR) versus TAPAAL(MC)

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

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) TAPAAL(MC) Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) TAPAAL(MC)
Computed OK 24 213 168   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 121 284
Error detected 22 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 213 46 201 Times tool wins 74 331


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-OTF(PAR) versus TAPAAL(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) 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-OTF(PAR) to TAPAAL(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) TAPAAL(SEQ) Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) TAPAAL(SEQ)
Computed OK 0 426 192   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 60 558
Error detected 22 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 404 0 10 Times tool wins 91 527


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-OTF(PAR) versus TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) 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-OTF(PAR) to TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)
Computed OK 0 0 192   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 167 25
Error detected 0 0 22   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 0 414 Times tool wins 41 151


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