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 UpperBounds 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 482 0 473   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 939 52
Tapaal > ITS-Tools 2   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools 34 Times tool wins 763 228
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 482 26


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 440 0 508   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 943 48
Tapaal > ITS-Tools.M 3   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < ITS-Tools.M 40 Times tool wins 791 200
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 439 26


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 55 10 645   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LoLA 47 Times tool wins 798 204
Tapaal > LoLA 197   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LoLA 48 Times tool wins 646 356
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 10 55 16


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 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 183 16 378   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 687 321
Tapaal > LTSMin 417   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < LTSMin 14 Times tool wins 630 378
Do not compete 0 193 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 26 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 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 992 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = enPAC 0 Times tool wins 992 0
Tapaal > enPAC 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < enPAC 0 Times tool wins 992 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 992 26


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 431 0 526   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 861 131
Tapaal > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < GreatSPN 35 Times tool wins 627 365
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 431 26


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 642 1 330   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = smart 0 Times tool wins 954 39
Tapaal > smart 3   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < smart 17 Times tool wins 852 141
Do not compete 0 193 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 11 459 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 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 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 68 1 604   Smallest Memory Footprint
Tapaal = 2018-Gold 57 Times tool wins 325 668
Tapaal > 2018-Gold 230   Shortest Execution Time
Tapaal < 2018-Gold 33 Times tool wins 309 684
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 68 25


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