fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2016
6th edition, Toruń, Poland, June 21, 2016
ITS-Tools compared to other tools (��Surprise�� 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 «Surprise» 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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal(SEQ) and 139 for ITS-Tools, so there are 139 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 8 34 15   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 9 0 0 Times tool wins 16 41
Error detected 1 16 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 37 5 69 Times tool wins 17 40


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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal(SEQ) and 139 for LTSMin, so there are 139 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 0 43 23   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 23 43
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 43 1 63 Times tool wins 12 54


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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal(SEQ) and 139 for Tapaal(PAR), so there are 139 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 6 0 17   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 22 1
Error detected 0 0 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 6 106 Times tool wins 16 7


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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal(SEQ) and 139 for Marcie, so there are 139 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 0 53 23   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 9 0 0 Times tool wins 22 54
Error detected 0 0 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 47 3 59 Times tool wins 14 62


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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal(SEQ) and 139 for pnmc, so there are 139 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 0 58 23   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 16 65
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 58 1 48 Times tool wins 11 70


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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal(SEQ) and 139 for PNXDD, so there are 139 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 8 13 15   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 22 14
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 13 9 93 Times tool wins 22 14


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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal(SEQ) and 139 for Smart, so there are 139 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 16 16 7   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 17 22
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 16 17 90 Times tool wins 20 19


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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal(SEQ) and 139 for Tapaal(EXP), so there are 139 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 5 23   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 4 24
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 5 1 101 Times tool wins 7 21


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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal(SEQ) and 139 for ydd-pt, so there are 139 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 16 0 7   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 19 4
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 17 106 Times tool wins 23 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