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(PAR) 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(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 57 132 224   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 167 246
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 39 126 41 Times tool wins 133 280


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 1 78 280   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 28 331
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 78 0 2 Times tool wins 18 341


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 80 281   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 227 134
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 80 0 0 Times tool wins 115 246


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 102 46 179   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 265 62
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 227 73 Times tool wins 181 146


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 155 39 126   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 188 132
Error detected 0 105 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 45 56 35 Times tool wins 167 153


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 74 281   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 104 251
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 74 0 6 Times tool wins 110 245


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 3 41 278   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 129 193
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 41 3 39 Times tool wins 123 199


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