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

Introduction

This page presents how TAPAAL(MC) do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireabilitySimple 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 Cunf

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

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) Cunf Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) Cunf
Computed OK 170 7 68   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 140 137 Times tool wins 180 65
Error detected 1 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 19 42 9 Times tool wins 188 57


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 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 183 2 55   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 23 0 114 Times tool wins 225 15
Error detected 1 83 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 128 22 Times tool wins 229 11


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 ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) ITS-Tools Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) ITS-Tools
Computed OK 68 51 170   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 137 0 0 Times tool wins 199 90
Error detected 1 7 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 154 22 Times tool wins 194 95


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 2 22 236   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 58 202
Error detected 1 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 21 0 7 Times tool wins 121 139


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 6 27 232   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 137 0 0 Times tool wins 210 55
Error detected 1 6 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 26 137 2 Times tool wins 192 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(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 110 39 128   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 137 0 0 Times tool wins 221 56
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 212 25 Times tool wins 216 61


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 0 23 238   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 21 240
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 22 0 6 Times tool wins 157 104


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 116 0 122   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 175 63
Error detected 1 7 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 110 28 Times tool wins 195 43


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 91 1 147   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 183 56
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 92 27 Times tool wins 181 58


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