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

Introduction

This page presents how TAPAAL(MC) do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityBounds examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Stripped» 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(MC)' 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(MC) versus GreatSPN-Meddly

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL(MC) 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(MC) to GreatSPN-Meddly are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) GreatSPN-Meddly Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) GreatSPN-Meddly
Computed OK 102 39 57   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 23 0 114 Times tool wins 134 64
Error detected 0 53 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 39 72 69 Times tool wins 133 65


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(MC) versus LoLA2.0

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL(MC) 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(MC) to LoLA2.0 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) LoLA2.0 Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) LoLA2.0
Computed OK 6 104 153   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 58 205
Error detected 0 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 104 3 4 Times tool wins 111 152


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(MC) versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL(MC) 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(MC) to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) LTSMin Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) LTSMin
Computed OK 159 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 137 266 0 Times tool wins 159 0
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 107 137 1 Times tool wins 159 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(MC) versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL(MC) 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(MC) to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) Marcie Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) Marcie
Computed OK 89 92 70   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 137 0 0 Times tool wins 150 101
Error detected 0 12 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 57 179 51 Times tool wins 137 114


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(MC) versus TAPAAL(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) TAPAAL(SEQ) Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) TAPAAL(SEQ)
Computed OK 1 104 158   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 9 254
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 104 1 4 Times tool wins 98 165


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(MC) versus TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)
Computed OK 94 12 65   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 125 46
Error detected 0 11 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 23 94 85 Times tool wins 138 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

TAPAAL(MC) versus TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)
Computed OK 94 12 65   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 137 34
Error detected 0 11 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 23 94 85 Times tool wins 130 41


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