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

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal do cope efficiently with the LTLCardinality 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 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 864 0 355   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = GreatSPN 8 Times tool wins 1440 159
Tapaal > GreatSPN 347   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < GreatSPN 25 Times tool wins 1316 283
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 142 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 722 18


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 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 2 17 945   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools 160 Times tool wins 1144 472
Tapaal > ITS-Tools 169   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools 323 Times tool wins 1167 449
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 1 1


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 1 hour 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 1 17 869   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LoLa+red 205 Times tool wins 903 713
Tapaal > LoLa+red 258   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LoLa+red 266 Times tool wins 872 744
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 1 1


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 1 hour 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 1 17 527   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LTSMin+red 196 Times tool wins 874 742
Tapaal > LTSMin+red 680   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LTSMin+red 195 Times tool wins 865 751
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 1 1


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 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 1 hour 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 1 5 1031   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = 2022-gold 516 Times tool wins 875 729
Tapaal > 2022-gold 10   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < 2022-gold 41 Times tool wins 887 717
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 5 0 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 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 1 hour 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 17 1034   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = BVT-2023 188 Times tool wins 0 1616
Tapaal > BVT-2023 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < BVT-2023 377 Times tool wins 0 1616
Do not compete 0 1 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 18 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 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 82 1 407   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LoLA 99 Times tool wins 884 716
Tapaal > LoLA 978   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LoLA 33 Times tool wins 1089 511
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 5 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 77 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.

memory chart time chart