fond
Model Checking Contest 2019
9th edition, Prague, Czech Republic, April 7, 2019 (TOOLympics)
Tapaal compared to other tools (
Last Updated
Apr 15, 2019

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 ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for Tapaal and 1018 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1018 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 558 2 227   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools 1 Times tool wins 759 237
Tapaal > ITS-Tools 112   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools 96 Times tool wins 809 187
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 558 22


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 ITS-Tools.M

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for Tapaal and 1018 for ITS-Tools.M, so there are 1018 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.M are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal ITS-Tools.M Both tools   Tapaal ITS-Tools.M
All computed OK 530 2 235   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools.M 1 Times tool wins 752 243
Tapaal > ITS-Tools.M 132   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools.M 95 Times tool wins 820 175
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 529 22


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.M, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than ITS-Tools.M, 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.M wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for Tapaal and 1018 for LoLA, so there are 1018 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 34 5 269   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LoLA 132 Times tool wins 511 488
Tapaal > LoLA 448   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LoLA 111 Times tool wins 511 488
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 3 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 31 19


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 enPAC

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for Tapaal and 1018 for enPAC, so there are 1018 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to enPAC are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal enPAC Both tools   Tapaal enPAC
All computed OK 994 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = enPAC 0 Times tool wins 994 0
Tapaal > enPAC 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < enPAC 0 Times tool wins 994 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 995 23


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

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for Tapaal and 1018 for GreatSPN, so there are 1018 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 653 1 225   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 774 221
Tapaal > GreatSPN 20   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < GreatSPN 96 Times tool wins 771 224
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 653 23


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 2018-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for Tapaal and 1018 for 2018-Gold, so there are 1018 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal to 2018-Gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal 2018-Gold Both tools   Tapaal 2018-Gold
All computed OK 0 0 413   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = 2018-Gold 490 Times tool wins 490 504
Tapaal > 2018-Gold 56   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < 2018-Gold 35 Times tool wins 439 555
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 1  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 0 23


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 2018-Gold, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than 2018-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, 2018-Gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart