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

Introduction

This page presents how TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) do cope efficiently with the StateSpace 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(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 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) 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(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 13 79 48   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 137 0 0 Times tool wins 20 120
Error detected 88 16 10   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 52 195 56 Times tool wins 26 114


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 ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) and 404 for ITS-Tools, 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(SEQ) to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) ITS-Tools Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) ITS-Tools
Computed OK 2 170 59   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 137 0 0 Times tool wins 38 193
Error detected 97 6 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 57 117 51 Times tool wins 38 193


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 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) 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(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 3 59 58   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 137 0 0 Times tool wins 45 75
Error detected 98 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 195 91 Times tool wins 39 81


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 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) 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(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 0 108 61   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 137 0 0 Times tool wins 61 108
Error detected 97 3 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 29 152 79 Times tool wins 42 127


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 pnmc

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) and 404 for pnmc, 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(SEQ) to pnmc are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) pnmc Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) pnmc
Computed OK 0 112 61   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 57 116
Error detected 98 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 56 42 52 Times tool wins 36 137


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(SEQ) versus PNXDD

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) and 404 for PNXDD, 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(SEQ) to PNXDD are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) PNXDD Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) PNXDD
Computed OK 16 11 45   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 56 16
Error detected 97 6 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 103 101 Times tool wins 58 14


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 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) 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(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 4 3 57   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 13 51
Error detected 98 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 100 107 Times tool wins 13 51


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 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) 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(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 5 3 56   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 9 55
Error detected 98 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 101 107 Times tool wins 13 51


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 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) and 404 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR), 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(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 6 6 55   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 37 30
Error detected 70 0 28   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 70 108 Times tool wins 52 15


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 StrataGEM0.5.0

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) and 404 for StrataGEM0.5.0, 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(SEQ) to StrataGEM0.5.0 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) StrataGEM0.5.0 Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) StrataGEM0.5.0
Computed OK 5 91 56   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 52 100
Error detected 98 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 52 64 56 Times tool wins 47 105


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