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

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal 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 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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal and 139 for LTSMin, 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 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 0 31 34   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 89 50
Tapaal > LTSMin 72   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LTSMin 2 Times tool wins 57 82
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 31 0 0


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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal 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 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 1 16 69   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LoLA 13 Times tool wins 25 99
Tapaal > LoLA 6   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LoLA 19 Times tool wins 14 110
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 16 1 15


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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal and 139 for M4M.full, 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 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 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = M4M.full 0 Times tool wins 108 0
Tapaal > M4M.full 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < M4M.full 0 Times tool wins 108 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 108 31


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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal and 139 for M4M.struct, 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 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 108 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = M4M.struct 0 Times tool wins 108 0
Tapaal > M4M.struct 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < M4M.struct 0 Times tool wins 108 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 108 31


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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal 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 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 46 2 56   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 108 2
Tapaal > ITS-Tools 2   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools 4 Times tool wins 83 27
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 46 29


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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal and 139 for ITS-Tools.L, 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 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 57 4 45   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools.L 0 Times tool wins 108 4
Tapaal > ITS-Tools.L 2   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools.L 4 Times tool wins 86 26
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 57 27


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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal and 139 for GreatSPN, 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 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 61 3 43   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 98 13
Tapaal > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < GreatSPN 4 Times tool wins 78 33
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 61 28


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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal and 139 for smart, 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 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 78 0 29   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = smart 0 Times tool wins 104 4
Tapaal > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < smart 1 Times tool wins 94 14
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 78 31


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 Irma.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for Tapaal and 139 for Irma.full, 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 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 108 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = Irma.full 0 Times tool wins 108 0
Tapaal > Irma.full 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < Irma.full 0 Times tool wins 108 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 108 31


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 278 runs (139 for Tapaal and 139 for Irma.struct, 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 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 108 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = Irma.struct 0 Times tool wins 108 0
Tapaal > Irma.struct 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < Irma.struct 0 Times tool wins 108 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 108 31


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