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

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal(SEQ) 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(SEQ)' 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(SEQ) versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(SEQ) 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(SEQ) to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(SEQ) ITS-Tools Both tools   Tapaal(SEQ) ITS-Tools
Computed OK 18 172 77   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 74 193
Error detected 0 46 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 127 91 139 Times tool wins 73 194


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(SEQ) versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(SEQ) 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(SEQ) to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(SEQ) LTSMin Both tools   Tapaal(SEQ) LTSMin
Computed OK 5 86 90   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 88 93
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 86 5 180 Times tool wins 74 107


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(SEQ) versus Tapaal(PAR)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(SEQ) 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(SEQ) to Tapaal(PAR) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(SEQ) Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   Tapaal(SEQ) Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 14 2 81   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 90 7
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 14 263 Times tool wins 67 30


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(SEQ) versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(SEQ) 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(SEQ) to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(SEQ) Marcie Both tools   Tapaal(SEQ) Marcie
Computed OK 1 161 94   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 92 164
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 108 112 158 Times tool wins 66 190


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(SEQ) versus pnmc

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(SEQ) 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(SEQ) to pnmc are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(SEQ) pnmc Both tools   Tapaal(SEQ) pnmc
Computed OK 2 133 93   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 82 146
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 135 2 131 Times tool wins 64 164


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(SEQ) versus PNXDD

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(SEQ) 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(SEQ) to PNXDD are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(SEQ) PNXDD Both tools   Tapaal(SEQ) PNXDD
Computed OK 24 25 71   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 79 41
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 26 24 240 Times tool wins 83 37


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(SEQ) versus Smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(SEQ) 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(SEQ) to Smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(SEQ) Smart Both tools   Tapaal(SEQ) Smart
Computed OK 50 72 45   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 74 93
Error detected 0 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 73 48 193 Times tool wins 81 86


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(SEQ) versus Tapaal(EXP)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(SEQ) 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(SEQ) to Tapaal(EXP) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(SEQ) Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   Tapaal(SEQ) Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 0 7 95   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 25 77
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 0 259 Times tool wins 25 77


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(SEQ) versus ydd-pt

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for Tapaal(SEQ) 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(SEQ) to ydd-pt are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(SEQ) ydd-pt Both tools   Tapaal(SEQ) ydd-pt
Computed OK 56 0 39   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 86 9
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 55 266 Times tool wins 95 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