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

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal do cope efficiently with the CTLCardinality 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

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 527 0 210   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = GreatSPN 12 Times tool wins 764 443
Tapaal > GreatSPN 328   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < GreatSPN 130 Times tool wins 845 362
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 4 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 529 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 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 53 16 233   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools 10 Times tool wins 682 541
Tapaal > ITS-Tools 786   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools 125 Times tool wins 976 247
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 2 2  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 51 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 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 189 9 153   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LoLA 28 Times tool wins 479 737
Tapaal > LoLA 809   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LoLA 28 Times tool wins 510 706
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 4 59 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 131 12


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 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 35 1 277   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = 2020-gold 462 Times tool wins 809 399
Tapaal > 2020-gold 303   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < 2020-gold 130 Times tool wins 646 562
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 4  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 34 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 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.

memory chart time chart

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 2 20 364   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = BVT-2021 277 Times tool wins 2 1225
Tapaal > BVT-2021 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < BVT-2021 564 Times tool wins 2 1225
Do not compete 0 2 0
Error detected 4 2 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-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.

memory chart time chart