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

Introduction

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

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 422 runs (211 for Tapaal and 211 for GreatSPN, so there are 211 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 0 98 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 8 128
Tapaal > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < GreatSPN 37 Times tool wins 20 116
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 98 0 75


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 422 runs (211 for Tapaal and 211 for ITS-Tools, so there are 211 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 3 95 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools 35 Times tool wins 9 124
Tapaal > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 22 111
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 6 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 99 1 74


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 smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 422 runs (211 for Tapaal and 211 for smart, so there are 211 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 0 27 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = smart 0 Times tool wins 36 29
Tapaal > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < smart 38 Times tool wins 20 45
Do not compete 0 20 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 47 0 126


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 422 runs (211 for Tapaal and 211 for TINA.tedd, so there are 211 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 1 98 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = TINA.tedd 0 Times tool wins 38 98
Tapaal > TINA.tedd 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < TINA.tedd 37 Times tool wins 21 115
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 98 1 75


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 2019-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 422 runs (211 for Tapaal and 211 for 2019-Gold, so there are 211 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 3 93 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = 2019-Gold 0 Times tool wins 3 128
Tapaal > 2019-Gold 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < 2019-Gold 35 Times tool wins 21 110
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 93 1 80


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