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

Introduction

This page presents how TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability 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-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 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) and 121 for Cunf, 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-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 34 4 2   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 71 27 Times tool wins 34 6
Error detected 2 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 42 0 14 Times tool wins 35 5


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 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) 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-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 29 1 7   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 32 5
Error detected 2 30 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 12 39 44 Times tool wins 34 3


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 ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) 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-OTF(PAR) to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) ITS-Tools Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) ITS-Tools
Computed OK 33 45 3   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 35 46
Error detected 1 49 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 41 8 15 Times tool wins 35 46


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 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) and 121 for LoLA2.0, 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-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 57 36   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 11 82
Error detected 2 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 56 0 0 Times tool wins 22 71


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 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) 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-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 2 56 34   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 34 58
Error detected 2 4 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 56 27 0 Times tool wins 32 60


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 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) 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-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 1 37 35   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 36 37
Error detected 2 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 22 14 34 Times tool wins 30 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-OTF(PAR) versus TAPAAL(MC)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) and 121 for TAPAAL(MC), 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-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 0 53 36   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 24 65
Error detected 2 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 53 0 3 Times tool wins 7 82


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 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) 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-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 58 36   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 16 78
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 56 0 0 Times tool wins 6 88


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 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) 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-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 1 17 35   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 30 23
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 15 1 41 Times tool wins 8 45


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