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

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal(PAR) do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityDeadlock 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 30 164 76   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 84 186
Error detected 0 6 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 109 133 146 Times tool wins 83 187


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 0 253 106   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 29 330
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 253 0 2 Times tool wins 17 342


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 10 89 96   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 91 104
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 89 10 166 Times tool wins 72 123


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 25 162 81   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 106 162
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 116 143 139 Times tool wins 85 183


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 5 237 101   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 81 262
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 237 5 18 Times tool wins 84 259


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 0 146 106   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 0 252
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 146 0 109 Times tool wins 1 251


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 0 136 106   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 0 242
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 136 0 119 Times tool wins 19 223


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