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

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal(PAR) do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability 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 96 82 195   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 166 207
Error detected 0 14 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 19 183 51 Times tool wins 157 216


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 70 291   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 47 314
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 70 0 0 Times tool wins 51 310


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 70 291   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 243 118
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 70 0 0 Times tool wins 161 200


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 112 55 179   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 281 65
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 228 63 Times tool wins 203 143


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 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(PAR) and 525 for PeCan, 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 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 178 24 113   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 224 91
Error detected 0 120 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 31 65 39 Times tool wins 195 120


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 Tapaal(EXP)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(PAR) and 525 for Tapaal(EXP), 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(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 68 291   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 114 245
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 68 0 2 Times tool wins 128 231


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 6 34 285   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 129 196
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 34 6 36 Times tool wins 122 203


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