fond
Model Checking Contest 2020
10th edition, Paris, France, June 23, 2020
Tapaal compared to other tools («All» models, ReachabilityFireability)
Last Updated
Jun 28, 2020

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability 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 GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for Tapaal and 1229 for GreatSPN, so there are 1229 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 483 6 395   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 713 458
Tapaal > GreatSPN 261   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < GreatSPN 25 Times tool wins 955 216
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 483 58


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 ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for Tapaal and 1229 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1229 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 5 45 902   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools 9 Times tool wins 272 938
Tapaal > ITS-Tools 21   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools 228 Times tool wins 545 665
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 4 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 45 1 19


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-LoLa

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for Tapaal and 1229 for ITS-LoLa, so there are 1229 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-LoLa are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal ITS-LoLa Both tools   Tapaal ITS-LoLa
All computed OK 6 43 889   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-LoLa 15 Times tool wins 278 930
Tapaal > ITS-LoLa 34   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-LoLa 221 Times tool wins 1164 44
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 8 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 45 0 19


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-LoLa, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than ITS-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, ITS-LoLa wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for Tapaal and 1229 for smart, so there are 1229 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 746 1 389   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = smart 0 Times tool wins 1161 5
Tapaal > smart 15   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < smart 15 Times tool wins 1050 116
Do not compete 0 213 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 57 589 7


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 2019-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for Tapaal and 1229 for 2019-Gold, so there are 1229 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to 2019-Gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal 2019-Gold Both tools   Tapaal 2019-Gold
All computed OK 4 2 879   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = 2019-Gold 100 Times tool wins 28 1139
Tapaal > 2019-Gold 63   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < 2019-Gold 119 Times tool wins 682 485
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 4 62


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 2019-Gold, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than 2019-Gold, 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, 2019-Gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart