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 StateSpace 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 17 309 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools 203 Times tool wins 177 352
Tapaal > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 147 382
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 309 17 489


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 22 260 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools.M 198 Times tool wins 177 303
Tapaal > ITS-Tools.M 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 157 323
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 260 22 538


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 LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for Tapaal and 1018 for LTSMin, 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 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 52 200 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LTSMin 168 Times tool wins 126 294
Tapaal > LTSMin 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 127 293
Do not compete 0 193 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 350 9 448


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

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 155 4 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = enPAC 0 Times tool wins 201 23
Tapaal > enPAC 65   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < enPAC 0 Times tool wins 204 20
Do not compete 0 193 0
Error detected 0 22 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 161 97 637


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 6 385 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 80 525
Tapaal > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < GreatSPN 213 Times tool wins 82 523
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 385 6 413


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 smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for Tapaal and 1018 for smart, 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 smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal smart Both tools   Tapaal smart
All computed OK 60 147 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = smart 1 Times tool wins 180 187
Tapaal > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < smart 159 Times tool wins 165 202
Do not compete 0 193 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 297 17 501


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

memory chart time chart

Tapaal versus TINA.tedd

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for Tapaal and 1018 for TINA.tedd, 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 TINA.tedd are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Tapaal TINA.tedd Both tools   Tapaal TINA.tedd
All computed OK 6 449 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = TINA.tedd 0 Times tool wins 206 463
Tapaal > TINA.tedd 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < TINA.tedd 214 Times tool wins 142 527
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 449 6 349


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 TINA.tedd, denote cases where Tapaal computed less values than TINA.tedd, 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, TINA.tedd 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 8 365 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = 2018-Gold 1 Times tool wins 73 498
Tapaal > 2018-Gold 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < 2018-Gold 197 Times tool wins 75 496
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 365 8 396


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