fond
Model Checking Contest 2024
14th edition, Geneva, Switzerland, June 25, 2024
Tapaal compared to other tools («All» models, LTLCardinality)
Last Updated
July 7, 2024

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal do cope efficiently with the LTLCardinality examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» 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+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for Tapaal and 1782 for GreatSPN+red, so there are 1782 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+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal GreatSPN+red Both tools   Tapaal GreatSPN+red
All computed OK 3 17 799   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = GreatSPN+red 148 Times tool wins 1252 529
Tapaal > GreatSPN+red 490   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < GreatSPN+red 324 Times tool wins 1250 531
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 2 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 GreatSPN+red, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than GreatSPN+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, GreatSPN+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus LTSMin+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for Tapaal and 1782 for LTSMin+red, so there are 1782 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 74 17 892   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LTSMin+red 171 Times tool wins 1115 666
Tapaal > LTSMin+red 278   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LTSMin+red 349 Times tool wins 1110 671
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 73 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 ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for Tapaal and 1782 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1782 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 17 908   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools 132 Times tool wins 1081 700
Tapaal > ITS-Tools 305   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools 417 Times tool wins 1158 623
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 2 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

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for Tapaal and 1782 for LoLA, so there are 1782 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 329 3 628   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LoLA 27 Times tool wins 1214 553
Tapaal > LoLA 747   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LoLA 33 Times tool wins 987 780
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 11 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 318 15


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 2023-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for Tapaal and 1782 for 2023-gold, so there are 1782 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to 2023-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal 2023-gold Both tools   Tapaal 2023-gold
All computed OK 11 17 926   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = 2023-gold 179 Times tool wins 1199 582
Tapaal > 2023-gold 186   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < 2023-gold 462 Times tool wins 1288 493
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 10 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 2023-gold, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than 2023-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, 2023-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus BVT-2024

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for Tapaal and 1782 for BVT-2024, so there are 1782 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-2024 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, Tapaal is compared to BVT-2024. 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-2024 Both tools   Tapaal BVT-2024
All computed OK 0 18 1006   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = BVT-2024 205 Times tool wins 0 1782
Tapaal > BVT-2024 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < BVT-2024 553 Times tool wins 0 1782
Do not compete 0 0 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-2024, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than BVT-2024, 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-2024 wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for Tapaal and 1782 for GreatSPN, so there are 1782 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 946 0 378   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = GreatSPN 18 Times tool wins 1543 221
Tapaal > GreatSPN 368   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < GreatSPN 54 Times tool wins 1402 362
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 169 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 777 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 LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for Tapaal and 1782 for LTSMin, so there are 1782 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 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal LTSMin Both tools   Tapaal LTSMin
All computed OK 387 1 419   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LTSMin 90 Times tool wins 853 912
Tapaal > LTSMin 808   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LTSMin 60 Times tool wins 901 864
Do not compete 0 16 0
Error detected 0 307 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 15 78 3


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

memory chart time chart