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

Introduction

This page presents how TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireabilitySimple 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(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 Cunf

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

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Cunf Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Cunf
Computed OK 61 4 5   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 71 27 Times tool wins 63 7
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 25 11 3 Times tool wins 63 7


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 GreatSPN-Meddly

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) 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(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 54 3 12   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 62 7
Error detected 0 23 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 61 22 Times tool wins 63 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-OTF(SEQ) versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) 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(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 14 41 52   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 62 45
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 17 11 Times tool wins 57 50


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 LoLA2.0

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) 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(SEQ) to LoLA2.0 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) LoLA2.0 Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) LoLA2.0
Computed OK 0 27 66   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 9 84
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 28 0 0 Times tool wins 36 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-OTF(SEQ) versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) 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(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 0 28 66   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 58 36
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 28 27 0 Times tool wins 49 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

TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) 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(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 19 25 47   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 66 25
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 11 32 17 Times tool wins 60 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-OTF(SEQ) versus TAPAAL(MC)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) 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(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 0 24 66   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 40 50
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 25 0 3 Times tool wins 32 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

TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) versus TAPAAL(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) 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(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 0 28 66   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 23 71
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 28 0 0 Times tool wins 26 68


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 242 runs (121 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) 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-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 15 7 51   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 17 56
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 15 21 Times tool wins 41 32


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