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

Introduction

This page presents how TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityDeadlock examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Known» 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 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) and 404 for Cunf, so there are 404 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 69 31 42   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 140 137 Times tool wins 73 69
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 111 7 45 Times tool wins 69 73


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 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) and 404 for GreatSPN-Meddly, so there are 404 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 27 58 84   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 23 0 114 Times tool wins 73 96
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 58 50 98 Times tool wins 80 89


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 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) and 404 for LoLA2.0, so there are 404 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 0 126 111   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 38 199
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 126 0 30 Times tool wins 4 233


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 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) and 404 for LTSMin, so there are 404 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 25 59 86   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 137 0 0 Times tool wins 100 70
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 59 162 97 Times tool wins 80 90


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 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) and 404 for Marcie, so there are 404 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 27 88 84   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 137 0 0 Times tool wins 91 108
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 53 129 103 Times tool wins 76 123


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 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) and 404 for TAPAAL(MC), so there are 404 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 22 68 89   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 62 117
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 68 22 88 Times tool wins 33 146


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 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) and 404 for TAPAAL(SEQ), so there are 404 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 0 153 111   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 27 237
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 153 0 3 Times tool wins 5 259


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 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) and 404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ), so there are 404 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 98 111   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 60 149
Error detected 0 10 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 108 0 48 Times tool wins 24 185


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