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

Introduction

This page presents how TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) 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-OTF(SEQ)' 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(SEQ) versus GreatSPN-Meddly

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

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) GreatSPN-Meddly Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) GreatSPN-Meddly
Computed OK 112 157 122   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 73 0 228 Times tool wins 178 213
Error detected 133 68 4   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 118 211 139 Times tool wins 188 203


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(SEQ) versus LoLA2.0

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

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) LoLA2.0 Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) LoLA2.0
Computed OK 0 384 234   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 74 544
Error detected 137 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 250 0 7 Times tool wins 126 492


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(SEQ) versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) LTSMin Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) LTSMin
Computed OK 234 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 626 0 Times tool wins 234 0
Error detected 137 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 255 301 2 Times tool wins 234 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(SEQ) versus Marcie

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

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Marcie Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Marcie
Computed OK 88 223 146   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 234 223
Error detected 132 51 5   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 56 303 201 Times tool wins 170 287


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(SEQ) versus TAPAAL(MC)

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

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) TAPAAL(MC) Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) TAPAAL(MC)
Computed OK 76 45 158   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 139 140
Error detected 135 2 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 178 243 Times tool wins 165 114


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(SEQ) versus TAPAAL(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) TAPAAL(SEQ) Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) TAPAAL(SEQ)
Computed OK 0 384 234   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 45 573
Error detected 137 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 247 0 10 Times tool wins 173 445


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(SEQ) versus TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)
Computed OK 89 7 145   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 141 100
Error detected 81 4 56   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 159 257 Times tool wins 208 33


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