fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2016
6th edition, Toruń, Poland, June 21, 2016
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («All» models, StateSpace)
Last Updated
June 30, 2016

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal(EXP) do cope efficiently with the StateSpace examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» 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(EXP)' 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(EXP) versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(EXP) and 1189 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(EXP) to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) ITS-Tools Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) ITS-Tools
Computed OK 51 343 180   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 337 0 0 Times tool wins 208 366
Error detected 0 108 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 267 204 354 Times tool wins 174 400


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal(EXP) versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(EXP) and 1189 for LTSMin, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(EXP) to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) LTSMin Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) LTSMin
Computed OK 12 199 219   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 227 203
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 199 12 422 Times tool wins 170 260


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal(EXP) versus Tapaal(PAR)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(EXP) and 1189 for Tapaal(PAR), so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(EXP) to Tapaal(PAR) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 48 1 183   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 231 1
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 48 618 Times tool wins 181 51


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal(EXP) versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(EXP) and 1189 for Marcie, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(EXP) to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) Marcie Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) Marcie
Computed OK 4 358 227   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 337 0 0 Times tool wins 230 359
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 248 230 373 Times tool wins 159 430


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal(EXP) versus pnmc

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(EXP) and 1189 for pnmc, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(EXP) to pnmc are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) pnmc Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) pnmc
Computed OK 7 283 224   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 223 291
Error detected 0 4 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 287 7 334 Times tool wins 147 367


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal(EXP) versus PNXDD

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(EXP) and 1189 for PNXDD, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(EXP) to PNXDD are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) PNXDD Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) PNXDD
Computed OK 70 61 161   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 219 73
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 63 70 558 Times tool wins 211 81


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal(EXP) versus Smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(EXP) and 1189 for Smart, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(EXP) to Smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) Smart Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) Smart
Computed OK 126 152 105   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 187 196
Error detected 0 6 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 154 122 467 Times tool wins 188 195


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal(EXP) versus Tapaal(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(EXP) and 1189 for Tapaal(SEQ), so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(EXP) to Tapaal(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 18 0 213   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 174 57
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 18 620 Times tool wins 160 71


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal(EXP) versus ydd-pt

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(EXP) and 1189 for ydd-pt, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(EXP) to ydd-pt are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) ydd-pt Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) ydd-pt
Computed OK 146 0 85   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 221 10
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 144 621 Times tool wins 231 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart