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

Introduction

This page presents how TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) 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-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 Cunf

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

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) Cunf Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) Cunf
Computed OK 210 67 92   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 351 301 Times tool wins 228 141
Error detected 14 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 215 19 97 Times tool wins 232 137


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 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 197 24 105   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 73 0 228 Times tool wins 263 63
Error detected 14 189 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 102 173 210 Times tool wins 284 42


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 ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) ITS-Tools Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) ITS-Tools
Computed OK 32 264 270   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 240 326
Error detected 14 14 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 142 211 170 Times tool wins 242 324


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 0 314 302   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 103 513
Error detected 14 5 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 305 0 7 Times tool wins 102 514


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 2 312 300   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 284 330
Error detected 14 12 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 308 301 4 Times tool wins 246 368


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 68 173 234   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 291 184
Error detected 14 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 79 289 233 Times tool wins 263 212


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 0 264 302   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 186 380
Error detected 14 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 253 0 59 Times tool wins 113 453


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 0 314 302   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 98 518
Error detected 14 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 300 0 12 Times tool wins 120 496


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 41 101 261   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 210 193
Error detected 14 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 87 41 225 Times tool wins 128 275


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