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

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal(PAR) do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityDeadlock 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(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(PAR) versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(PAR) 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(PAR) to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(PAR) ITS-Tools Both tools   Tapaal(PAR) ITS-Tools
Computed OK 72 357 168   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 337 0 0 Times tool wins 192 405
Error detected 0 13 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 245 284 367 Times tool wins 190 407


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(PAR) versus LoLa

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(PAR) and 1189 for LoLa, 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(PAR) to LoLa are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(PAR) LoLa Both tools   Tapaal(PAR) LoLa
Computed OK 1 610 239   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 68 782
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 610 1 2 Times tool wins 21 829


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(PAR) versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(PAR) 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(PAR) to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(PAR) LTSMin Both tools   Tapaal(PAR) LTSMin
Computed OK 24 227 216   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 211 256
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 227 24 385 Times tool wins 165 302


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(PAR) versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(PAR) 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(PAR) to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(PAR) Marcie Both tools   Tapaal(PAR) Marcie
Computed OK 50 367 190   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 337 0 0 Times tool wins 240 367
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 270 290 342 Times tool wins 193 414


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(PAR) versus PeCan

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(PAR) and 1189 for PeCan, 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(PAR) to PeCan are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(PAR) PeCan Both tools   Tapaal(PAR) PeCan
Computed OK 13 546 227   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 184 602
Error detected 0 13 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 556 10 56 Times tool wins 181 605


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(PAR) versus Tapaal(EXP)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(PAR) and 1189 for Tapaal(EXP), 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(PAR) to Tapaal(EXP) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(PAR) Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   Tapaal(PAR) Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 0 372 240   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 0 612
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 372 0 240 Times tool wins 3 609


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(PAR) versus Tapaal(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(PAR) 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(PAR) to Tapaal(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(PAR) Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   Tapaal(PAR) Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 0 348 240   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 1 587
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 348 0 264 Times tool wins 38 550


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