fond
Model Checking Contest 2018
8th edition, Bratislava, Slovakia, June 26, 2018
Tapaal compared to other tools («Known» 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 «Known» 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 1616 runs (808 for Tapaal and 808 for LTSMin, so there are 808 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 48 131 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LTSMin 153 Times tool wins 190 142
Tapaal > LTSMin 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 147 185
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 271 7 336


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 1616 runs (808 for Tapaal and 808 for LoLA, so there are 808 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 201 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 201 0
Tapaal > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 201 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 201 607


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 1616 runs (808 for Tapaal and 808 for M4M.full, so there are 808 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 108 151 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = M4M.full 18 Times tool wins 184 168
Tapaal > M4M.full 5   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < M4M.full 70 Times tool wins 173 179
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 151 108 456


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 1616 runs (808 for Tapaal and 808 for M4M.struct, so there are 808 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 107 152 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = M4M.struct 29 Times tool wins 183 170
Tapaal > M4M.struct 5   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < M4M.struct 60 Times tool wins 173 180
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 152 107 455


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 1616 runs (808 for Tapaal and 808 for ITS-Tools, so there are 808 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 13 271 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools 188 Times tool wins 201 271
Tapaal > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 120 352
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 271 13 336


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 1616 runs (808 for Tapaal and 808 for ITS-Tools.L, so there are 808 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 14 253 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools.L 187 Times tool wins 201 253
Tapaal > ITS-Tools.L 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools.L 0 Times tool wins 134 320
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 253 14 354


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 1616 runs (808 for Tapaal and 808 for GreatSPN, so there are 808 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 6 332 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 75 458
Tapaal > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < GreatSPN 195 Times tool wins 74 459
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 332 6 275


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 1616 runs (808 for Tapaal and 808 for smart, so there are 808 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 59 136 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = smart 0 Times tool wins 157 180
Tapaal > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < smart 142 Times tool wins 145 192
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 275 18 332


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 1616 runs (808 for Tapaal and 808 for TINA.tedd, so there are 808 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 6 335 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = TINA.tedd 0 Times tool wins 189 347
Tapaal > TINA.tedd 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < TINA.tedd 195 Times tool wins 126 410
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 335 6 272


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 1616 runs (808 for Tapaal and 808 for Irma.full, so there are 808 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 99 191 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = Irma.full 5 Times tool wins 184 208
Tapaal > Irma.full 14   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < Irma.full 83 Times tool wins 168 224
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 197 97 410


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 1616 runs (808 for Tapaal and 808 for Irma.struct, so there are 808 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 99 190 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = Irma.struct 5 Times tool wins 184 207
Tapaal > Irma.struct 14   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < Irma.struct 83 Times tool wins 168 223
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 196 97 411


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 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