fond
Model Checking Contest 2018
8th edition, Bratislava, Slovakia, June 26, 2018
Tapaal compared to other tools («All» models, StateSpace)
Last Updated
June 26, 2018

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal do cope efficiently with the StateSpace examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» models.

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in terms of 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 while others 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 1894 runs (947 for Tapaal and 947 for LTSMin, so there are 947 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 executions
  Tapaal LTSMin Both tools   Tapaal LTSMin
All computed OK 51 153 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LTSMin 164 Times tool wins 203 165
Tapaal > LTSMin 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 156 212
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 293 10 439


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where Tapaal computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than LTSMin, 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.

Tapaal wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Tapaal and 947 for LoLA, so there are 947 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 executions
  Tapaal LoLA Both tools   Tapaal LoLA
All computed OK 215 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 215 0
Tapaal > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 215 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 215 732


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where Tapaal computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than LoLA, 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.

Tapaal wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus M4M.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Tapaal and 947 for M4M.full, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to M4M.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal M4M.full Both tools   Tapaal M4M.full
All computed OK 122 151 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = M4M.full 18 Times tool wins 198 168
Tapaal > M4M.full 5   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < M4M.full 70 Times tool wins 187 179
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 151 122 581


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where Tapaal computed more values than M4M.full, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than M4M.full, 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.

Tapaal wins when points are below the diagonal, M4M.full wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus M4M.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Tapaal and 947 for M4M.struct, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to M4M.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal M4M.struct Both tools   Tapaal M4M.struct
All computed OK 121 152 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = M4M.struct 29 Times tool wins 197 170
Tapaal > M4M.struct 5   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < M4M.struct 60 Times tool wins 187 180
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 152 121 580


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where Tapaal computed more values than M4M.struct, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than M4M.struct, 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.

Tapaal wins when points are below the diagonal, M4M.struct wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Tapaal and 947 for ITS-Tools, so there are 947 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 executions
  Tapaal ITS-Tools Both tools   Tapaal ITS-Tools
All computed OK 13 321 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools 202 Times tool wins 215 321
Tapaal > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 128 408
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 321 13 411


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where Tapaal computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than ITS-Tools, 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.

Tapaal wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus ITS-Tools.L

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Tapaal and 947 for ITS-Tools.L, so there are 947 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.L are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal ITS-Tools.L Both tools   Tapaal ITS-Tools.L
All computed OK 14 297 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools.L 201 Times tool wins 215 297
Tapaal > ITS-Tools.L 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools.L 0 Times tool wins 143 369
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 297 14 435


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where Tapaal computed more values than ITS-Tools.L, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than ITS-Tools.L, 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.

Tapaal wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools.L wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Tapaal and 947 for GreatSPN, so there are 947 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 executions
  Tapaal GreatSPN Both tools   Tapaal GreatSPN
All computed OK 8 377 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 81 511
Tapaal > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < GreatSPN 206 Times tool wins 82 510
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 377 8 355


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where Tapaal computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than GreatSPN, 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.

Tapaal wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Tapaal and 947 for smart, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal smart Both tools   Tapaal smart
All computed OK 60 154 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = smart 0 Times tool wins 168 201
Tapaal > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < smart 155 Times tool wins 155 214
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 293 19 439


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where Tapaal computed more values than smart, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than smart, 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.

Tapaal wins when points are below the diagonal, smart wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus TINA.tedd

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Tapaal and 947 for TINA.tedd, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to TINA.tedd are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal TINA.tedd Both tools   Tapaal TINA.tedd
All computed OK 9 383 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = TINA.tedd 0 Times tool wins 201 397
Tapaal > TINA.tedd 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < TINA.tedd 206 Times tool wins 135 463
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 6 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 387 7 345


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where Tapaal computed more values than TINA.tedd, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than TINA.tedd, 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.

Tapaal wins when points are below the diagonal, TINA.tedd wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus Irma.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Tapaal and 947 for Irma.full, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to Irma.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal Irma.full Both tools   Tapaal Irma.full
All computed OK 113 191 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = Irma.full 5 Times tool wins 198 208
Tapaal > Irma.full 14   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < Irma.full 83 Times tool wins 182 224
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 197 111 535


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where Tapaal computed more values than Irma.full, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than Irma.full, 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.

Tapaal wins when points are below the diagonal, Irma.full wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus Irma.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Tapaal and 947 for Irma.struct, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to Irma.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal Irma.struct Both tools   Tapaal Irma.struct
All computed OK 113 190 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = Irma.struct 5 Times tool wins 198 207
Tapaal > Irma.struct 14   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < Irma.struct 83 Times tool wins 182 223
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 196 111 536


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where Tapaal computed more values than Irma.struct, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than Irma.struct, 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.

Tapaal wins when points are below the diagonal, Irma.struct wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart