fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2016
6th edition, Toruń, Poland, June 21, 2016
ITS-Tools%20compared%20to%20other%20tools%20(%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BDKnown%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD%20models,%20StateSpace)
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 «Known» 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 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(EXP) and 525 for ITS-Tools, so there are 525 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 19 166 83   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 93 175
Error detected 0 46 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 121 92 138 Times tool wins 77 191


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 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(EXP) and 525 for LTSMin, so there are 525 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 6 80 96   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 100 82
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 80 6 179 Times tool wins 79 103


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 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(EXP) and 525 for Tapaal(PAR), so there are 525 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 19 0 83   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 102 0
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 19 258 Times tool wins 80 22


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 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(EXP) and 525 for Marcie, so there are 525 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 2 155 100   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 102 155
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 102 113 157 Times tool wins 72 185


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 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(EXP) and 525 for pnmc, so there are 525 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 3 127 99   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 99 130
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 129 3 130 Times tool wins 68 161


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 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(EXP) and 525 for PNXDD, so there are 525 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 30 24 72   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 96 30
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 25 30 234 Times tool wins 93 33


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 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(EXP) and 525 for Smart, so there are 525 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 54 69 48   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 81 90
Error detected 0 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 70 52 189 Times tool wins 83 88


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 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(EXP) and 525 for Tapaal(SEQ), so there are 525 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 7 0 95   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 77 25
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 7 259 Times tool wins 69 33


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 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(EXP) and 525 for ydd-pt, so there are 525 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 63 0 39   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 97 5
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 62 259 Times tool wins 102 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