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

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal(EXP) do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Stripped» 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 98 99 257   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 255 199
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 167 0 Times tool wins 179 275


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 LoLa

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

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) LoLa Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) LoLa
Computed OK 2 5 353   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 122 238
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 5 1 1 Times tool wins 37 323


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 0 6 355   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 292 69
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 0 0 Times tool wins 128 233


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 74 0 281   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 251 104
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 74 6 Times tool wins 188 167


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 169 39 186   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 304 90
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 294 6 Times tool wins 264 130


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 PeCan

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

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) PeCan Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) PeCan
Computed OK 190 0 165   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 249 106
Error detected 0 105 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 85 6 Times tool wins 218 137


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 36 0 319   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 256 99
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 36 6 Times tool wins 173 182


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