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

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+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for Tapaal and 1678 for GreatSPN+red, so there are 1678 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 16 16 649   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = GreatSPN+red 141 Times tool wins 1142 532
Tapaal > GreatSPN+red 481   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < GreatSPN+red 371 Times tool wins 1112 562
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 7 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 16 9 4


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 3356 runs (1678 for Tapaal and 1678 for LTSMin+red, so there are 1678 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 68 16 695   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LTSMin+red 146 Times tool wins 985 689
Tapaal > LTSMin+red 351   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LTSMin+red 398 Times tool wins 931 743
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 66 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 16 2 4


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 3356 runs (1678 for Tapaal and 1678 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1678 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 10 16 750   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools 93 Times tool wins 942 732
Tapaal > ITS-Tools 293   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools 512 Times tool wins 1020 654
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 16 9 4


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 3356 runs (1678 for Tapaal and 1678 for LoLA, so there are 1678 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 295 5 494   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LoLA 47 Times tool wins 1049 614
Tapaal > LoLA 797   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LoLA 25 Times tool wins 732 931
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 8 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 5 287 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 3356 runs (1678 for Tapaal and 1678 for 2023-gold, so there are 1678 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 3 16 775   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = 2023-gold 130 Times tool wins 1058 616
Tapaal > 2023-gold 198   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < 2023-gold 552 Times tool wins 1094 580
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 16 1 4


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 3356 runs (1678 for Tapaal and 1678 for BVT-2024, so there are 1678 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 16 839   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = BVT-2024 184 Times tool wins 0 1674
Tapaal > BVT-2024 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < BVT-2024 635 Times tool wins 0 1674
Do not compete 0 4 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 20 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 3356 runs (1678 for Tapaal and 1678 for GreatSPN, so there are 1678 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 889 0 376   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = GreatSPN 23 Times tool wins 1423 235
Tapaal > GreatSPN 309   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < GreatSPN 61 Times tool wins 1241 417
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 127 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 762 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 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 3356 runs (1678 for Tapaal and 1678 for LTSMin, so there are 1678 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 313 1 394   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LTSMin 122 Times tool wins 663 996
Tapaal > LTSMin 731   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LTSMin 98 Times tool wins 610 1049
Do not compete 0 17 0
Error detected 0 237 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 18 76 2


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