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

Introduction

This page presents how TAPAAL(MC) do cope efficiently with the StateSpace examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Surprise» 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 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL(MC) and 121 for GreatSPN-Meddly, so there are 121 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 13 14 26   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 27 26
Error detected 0 13 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 20 33 35 Times tool wins 37 16


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 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL(MC) and 121 for ITS-Tools, so there are 121 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 11 25 28   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 38 26
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 18 30 37 Times tool wins 39 25


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 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL(MC) and 121 for LTSMin, so there are 121 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 9 19 30   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 32 26
Error detected 0 8 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 22 31 33 Times tool wins 37 21


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 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL(MC) and 121 for Marcie, so there are 121 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 8 27 31   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 39 27
Error detected 0 16 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 21 13 34 Times tool wins 37 29


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 pnmc

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL(MC) and 121 for pnmc, so there are 121 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 pnmc are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) pnmc Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) pnmc
Computed OK 2 24 37   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 36 27
Error detected 0 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 27 2 28 Times tool wins 32 31


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 PNXDD

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL(MC) and 121 for PNXDD, so there are 121 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 PNXDD are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) PNXDD Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) PNXDD
Computed OK 39 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 39 0
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 39 55 Times tool wins 39 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 TAPAAL(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL(MC) and 121 for TAPAAL(SEQ), so there are 121 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 0 39   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 3 36
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 0 55 Times tool wins 25 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(MC) versus TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL(MC) and 121 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR), so there are 121 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 10 0 29   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 19 20
Error detected 0 9 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 8 9 47 Times tool wins 39 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 TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL(MC) and 121 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ), so there are 121 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 6 5 33   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 29 15
Error detected 0 22 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 27 6 28 Times tool wins 38 6


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 StrataGEM0.5.0

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL(MC) and 121 for StrataGEM0.5.0, so there are 121 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 StrataGEM0.5.0 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL(MC) StrataGEM0.5.0 Both tools   TAPAAL(MC) StrataGEM0.5.0
Computed OK 9 8 30   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 39 8
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 8 9 47 Times tool wins 39 8


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