 Model Checking Contest 2021
11th edition, Paris, France, June 23, 2021
Tapaal compared to other tools (��Known�� models, LTLFireability)
Last Updated
Jun 28, 2021 Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal do cope efficiently with the LTLFireability 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 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 612 1 267 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = GreatSPN — — 15 Times tool wins 1034 161 Tapaal > GreatSPN — — 253 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < GreatSPN — — 47 Times tool wins 885 310 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 3 92 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 523 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 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.

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 21 522 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = ITS-Tools — — 108 Times tool wins 852 363 Tapaal > ITS-Tools — — 249 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < ITS-Tools — — 310 Times tool wins 831 384 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 3 2 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 19 4 13

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.

Tapaal versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for Tapaal and 1229 for 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 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 175 16 322 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = LoLA — — 126 Times tool wins 562 648 Tapaal > LoLA — — 514 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < LoLA — — 57 Times tool wins 687 523 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 3 6 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 15 171 17

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.

Tapaal versus enPAC

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

 Statistics on the executions Tapaal enPAC Both tools Tapaal enPAC All computed OK 9 29 350 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = enPAC — — 122 Times tool wins 824 399 Tapaal > enPAC — — 611 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < enPAC — — 102 Times tool wins 488 735 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 3 1 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 27 9 5

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

Tapaal versus 2020-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for Tapaal and 1229 for 2020-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 2020-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

 Statistics on the executions Tapaal 2020-gold Both tools Tapaal 2020-gold All computed OK 87 5 335 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = 2020-gold — — 100 Times tool wins 1067 132 Tapaal > 2020-gold — — 624 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < 2020-gold — — 48 Times tool wins 1194 5 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 3 24 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 10 71 22

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 2020-gold, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than 2020-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, 2020-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

Tapaal versus BVT-2021

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for Tapaal and 1229 for BVT-2021, 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 BVT-2021 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, Tapaal is compared to BVT-2021. It is a good way to check how Tapaal compete in terms of resource consomption with the best tools (even virtual). When Tapaal is best, the corresponding plots are on the diagonal of the scatter plots chart.

 Statistics on the executions Tapaal BVT-2021 Both tools Tapaal BVT-2021 All computed OK 2 32 614 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = BVT-2021 — — 145 Times tool wins 2 1224 Tapaal > BVT-2021 — — 0 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < BVT-2021 — — 433 Times tool wins 2 1224 Do not compete 0 3 0 Error detected 3 2 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 32 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 BVT-2021, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than BVT-2021, 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, BVT-2021 wins when points are above the diagonal.