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

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal(SEQ) do cope efficiently with the UpperBounds 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 15 26 17   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 9 0 0 Times tool wins 27 31
Error detected 1 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 28 24 69 Times tool wins 22 36


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 LoLa

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for Tapaal(SEQ) and 139 for LoLa, 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 LoLa are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(SEQ) LoLa Both tools   Tapaal(SEQ) LoLa
Computed OK 0 97 32   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 13 116
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 97 1 0 Times tool wins 7 122


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 16 0 16   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 29 3
Error detected 0 0 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 16 97 Times tool wins 18 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 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 3 47 29   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 9 0 0 Times tool wins 30 49
Error detected 0 0 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 41 6 56 Times tool wins 14 65


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 1 7 31   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 3 36
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 2 90 Times tool wins 4 35


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 32 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 9 0 0 Times tool wins 32 0
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 42 97 Times tool wins 32 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