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

This page presents how Tapaal do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability 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 515 0 386 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = GreatSPN — — 2 Times tool wins 1119 84 Tapaal > GreatSPN — — 274 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < GreatSPN — — 26 Times tool wins 1002 201 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 515 26

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 1 18 900 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = ITS-Tools — — 15 Times tool wins 934 287 Tapaal > ITS-Tools — — 24 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < ITS-Tools — — 263 Times tool wins 634 587 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 18 1 8

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 89 10 814 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = LoLA — — 39 Times tool wins 639 574 Tapaal > LoLA — — 164 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < LoLA — — 97 Times tool wins 387 826 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 1 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 10 88 16

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 smpt

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

 Statistics on the executions Tapaal smpt Both tools Tapaal smpt All computed OK 194 2 345 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = smpt — — 7 Times tool wins 913 292 Tapaal > smpt — — 647 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < smpt — — 10 Times tool wins 1020 185 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 1 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 193 24

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 smpt, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than smpt, 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, smpt 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 6 13 891 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = 2020-gold — — 17 Times tool wins 927 289 Tapaal > 2020-gold — — 30 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < 2020-gold — — 259 Times tool wins 1203 13 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 13 6 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 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 0 20 916 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = BVT-2021 — — 10 Times tool wins 0 1223 Tapaal > BVT-2021 — — 0 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < BVT-2021 — — 277 Times tool wins 0 1223 Do not compete 0 6 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 26 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.