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

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal(PAR) do cope efficiently with the CTLCardinality 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(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 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(PAR) 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(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 101 109 22   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 110 122
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 111 265 127 Times tool wins 112 120


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 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(PAR) and 525 for LoLa, 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(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 0 238 123   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 70 291
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 238 0 0 Times tool wins 24 337


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 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(PAR) 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(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 0 238 123   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 92 269
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 238 0 0 Times tool wins 58 303


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 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(PAR) 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(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 79 168 44   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 101 190
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 133 208 105 Times tool wins 105 186


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 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(PAR) 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(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 1 226 122   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 85 264
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 228 1 10 Times tool wins 57 292


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