 Model Checking Contest 2021
11th edition, Paris, France, June 23, 2021
Tapaal compared to other tools (��Surprise�� models, UpperBounds)
Last Updated
Jun 28, 2021 # Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal do cope efficiently with the UpperBounds examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Surprise» 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 364 runs (182 for Tapaal and 182 for GreatSPN, so there are 182 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 79 17 80 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = GreatSPN — — 0 Times tool wins 145 33 Tapaal > GreatSPN — — 0 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < GreatSPN — — 2 Times tool wins 114 64 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 79 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, 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.

# Tapaal versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 364 runs (182 for Tapaal and 182 for ITS-Tools, so there are 182 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 0 0 127 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = ITS-Tools — — 12 Times tool wins 145 16 Tapaal > ITS-Tools — — 6 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < ITS-Tools — — 16 Times tool wins 131 30 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 0 21

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.

# Tapaal versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 364 runs (182 for Tapaal and 182 for LoLA, so there are 182 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 17 0 120 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = LoLA — — 11 Times tool wins 77 84 Tapaal > LoLA — — 11 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < LoLA — — 2 Times tool wins 39 122 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 17 21

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.

# Tapaal versus 2020-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 364 runs (182 for Tapaal and 182 for 2020-gold, so there are 182 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 95 0 65 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = 2020-gold — — 0 Times tool wins 161 0 Tapaal > 2020-gold — — 0 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < 2020-gold — — 1 Times tool wins 159 2 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 34 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 78 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 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.

# Tapaal versus BVT-2021

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 364 runs (182 for Tapaal and 182 for BVT-2021, so there are 182 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 0 17 132 Smallest Memory Footprint Tapaal = BVT-2021 — — 11 Times tool wins 0 178 Tapaal > BVT-2021 — — 0 Shortest Execution Time Tapaal < BVT-2021 — — 18 Times tool wins 0 178 Do not compete 0 4 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 21 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.