fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2017
7th edition, Zaragoza, Spain, June 27, 2017
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («Known» models, ReachabilityDeadlock)
Last Updated
June 27, 2017

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityDeadlock examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Known» 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' 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 versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for Tapaal and 433 for LTSMin, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal LTSMin Both tools   Tapaal LTSMin
Computed OK 105 15 146   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 120 Times tool wins 243 23
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 15 105 47 Times tool wins 240 26


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 versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for Tapaal and 433 for LoLA, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal LoLA Both tools   Tapaal LoLA
Computed OK 7 129 244   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 120 0 0 Times tool wins 121 259
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 36 34 26 Times tool wins 41 339


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 versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for Tapaal and 433 for ITS-Tools, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal ITS-Tools Both tools   Tapaal ITS-Tools
Computed OK 100 50 151   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 120 0 0 Times tool wins 242 59
Error detected 0 5 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 22 187 40 Times tool wins 241 60


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 versus MARCIE

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for Tapaal and 433 for MARCIE, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to MARCIE are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal MARCIE Both tools   Tapaal MARCIE
Computed OK 133 45 118   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 120 0 0 Times tool wins 251 45
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 18 226 44 Times tool wins 241 55


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 versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for Tapaal and 433 for GreatSPN, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal GreatSPN Both tools   Tapaal GreatSPN
Computed OK 149 41 102   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 120 0 0 Times tool wins 189 103
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 242 48 Times tool wins 203 89


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