fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2017
7th edition, Zaragoza, Spain, June 27, 2017
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («Surprise» 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 «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' 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 306 runs (153 for Tapaal and 153 for LTSMin, so there are 153 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 39 15 62   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 16 Times tool wins 98 18
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 15 39 21 Times tool wins 97 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 versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 306 runs (153 for Tapaal and 153 for LoLA, so there are 153 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 0 37 101   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 16 0 0 Times tool wins 51 87
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 21 0 15 Times tool wins 4 134


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 306 runs (153 for Tapaal and 153 for ITS-Tools, so there are 153 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 12 29 89   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 16 0 0 Times tool wins 93 37
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 21 20 15 Times tool wins 93 37


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 306 runs (153 for Tapaal and 153 for MARCIE, so there are 153 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 60 11 41   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 16 0 0 Times tool wins 100 12
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 8 73 28 Times tool wins 97 15


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 306 runs (153 for Tapaal and 153 for GreatSPN, so there are 153 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 68 25 33   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 16 0 0 Times tool wins 97 29
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 76 19 Times tool wins 97 29


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