fond
Model Checking Contest 2023
13th edition, Paris, France, April 26, 2023 (at TOOLympics II)
Tapaal compared to other tools («Known» models, Liveness)
Last Updated
May 14, 2023

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal do cope efficiently with the Liveness 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 3234 runs (1617 for Tapaal and 1617 for GreatSPN, so there are 1617 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes 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 677 117 508   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 1091 211
Tapaal > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 1023 279
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 118 677 314


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 3234 runs (1617 for Tapaal and 1617 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1617 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes 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 12 332 1173   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 859 658
Tapaal > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 574 943
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 332 12 100


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 LoLa+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3234 runs (1617 for Tapaal and 1617 for LoLa+red, so there are 1617 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to LoLa+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal LoLa+red Both tools   Tapaal LoLa+red
All computed OK 5 323 1180   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 850 658
Tapaal > LoLa+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 571 937
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 323 5 109


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

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus LTSMin+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3234 runs (1617 for Tapaal and 1617 for LTSMin+red, so there are 1617 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to LTSMin+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal LTSMin+red Both tools   Tapaal LTSMin+red
All computed OK 62 228 1123   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 880 533
Tapaal > LTSMin+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 596 817
Do not compete 0 245 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 411 0 21


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

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus Marcie+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3234 runs (1617 for Tapaal and 1617 for Marcie+red, so there are 1617 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to Marcie+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal Marcie+red Both tools   Tapaal Marcie+red
All computed OK 62 229 1123   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 879 535
Tapaal > Marcie+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 598 816
Do not compete 0 245 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 412 0 20


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

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus Smart+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3234 runs (1617 for Tapaal and 1617 for Smart+red, so there are 1617 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to Smart+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal Smart+red Both tools   Tapaal Smart+red
All computed OK 40 269 1145   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = Smart+red 0 Times tool wins 869 585
Tapaal > Smart+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < Smart+red 0 Times tool wins 588 866
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 43 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 293 21 139


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

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus 2022-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3234 runs (1617 for Tapaal and 1617 for 2022-gold, so there are 1617 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to 2022-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal 2022-gold Both tools   Tapaal 2022-gold
All computed OK 11 336 1174   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 830 691
Tapaal > 2022-gold 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 522 999
Do not compete 0 5 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 341 11 91


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 2022-gold, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than 2022-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, 2022-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus BVT-2023

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3234 runs (1617 for Tapaal and 1617 for BVT-2023, so there are 1617 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to BVT-2023 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, Tapaal is compared to BVT-2023. 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-2023 Both tools   Tapaal BVT-2023
All computed OK 0 366 1185   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 1551
Tapaal > BVT-2023 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 1551
Do not compete 0 66 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 432 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-2023, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than BVT-2023, 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-2023 wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3234 runs (1617 for Tapaal and 1617 for LoLA, so there are 1617 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes 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 16 282 1169   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 518 949
Tapaal > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 35 1432
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 282 16 150


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 Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3234 runs (1617 for Tapaal and 1617 for Marcie, so there are 1617 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal Marcie Both tools   Tapaal Marcie
All computed OK 1185 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = Marcie 0 Times tool wins 1185 0
Tapaal > Marcie 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < Marcie 0 Times tool wins 1185 0
Do not compete 0 1581 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 427 31 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 Marcie, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than Marcie, 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, Marcie wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus Smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3234 runs (1617 for Tapaal and 1617 for Smart, so there are 1617 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes 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 897 31 288   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = Smart 0 Times tool wins 1128 88
Tapaal > Smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < Smart 0 Times tool wins 1108 108
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 22 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 41 885 391


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