### Table 1. State spaces explored by the tools

### Table 7: Comparing the application of PU for the three state-space exploration techniques for di erent numbers of states at time t = 1.

1996

"... In PAGE 26: ...he non-evaluated probability mass. We do so as follows. We stepwise increase the required MTTU, and generate all those states that are needed to ful ll the MTTU requirement. As can be observed from Table7 , the number of generated states increases with increasing required MTTU. We then employ PU over those states and tabulate the non-evaluated probability mass.... In PAGE 26: ... These techniques may use di erent states in their evaluation, however, the number of employed states is the same. In Table7 we present the non-evaluated probability mass for t = 1. As can be observed, both the MTTU- and the HEU-method outperform the BF state-space exploration method by several orders of magnitude, especially in case of moderate number of states.... ..."

Cited by 11

### Table 9: Space (in MB) for state space exploration using a PASSED list based on hash compaction with 47-bit signatures.

2001

"... In PAGE 60: ... Example signature signature+pack Classic 16MB 32MB 64MB 16MB 32MB 64MB Field Bus (Faulty 1) ? ? ? ? 140:86 144:73 148:12 Field Bus (Faulty 2) ? ? ? ? 211:41 215:45 218:17 Field Bus (Faulty 3) ? ? ? ? ? ? 1296:95 Field Bus (Fixed) ? ? ? ? ? 464:89 488:39 Philips (correct) 3:30 3:46 3:82 2:19 2:32 2:61 1:89 Philips (faulty) ? ? ? 23:11 23:05 23:40 22:84 B amp;O 22:62 22:78 22:83 20:00 20:11 20:32 16:45 DACAPO (big) 304:24 305:09 303:44 ? 256:77 256:35 259:87 DACAPO (small) 19:11 19:25 19:64 13:70 13:86 14:15 12:60 Fischer 5 13:05 13:18 13:50 12:80 13:05 13:35 14:42 Fischer 6 641:39 643:09 646:26 1252:79 995:90 963:30 1210:97 Table 8: Run time (in seconds) for state space exploration using a PASSED list based on hash compaction with 47-bit signatures. The measured memory use for the different examples is listed in Table9 . From this table we note that for the large examples, i.... ..."

### Table 9: Space (in MB) for state space exploration using a PASSED list based on hash compaction with 47-bit signatures.

2001

"... In PAGE 34: ... This is partly due to the extra work needed to compute the signatures and partly due to that the hash compaction im- plementation within UPPAAL is partly a prototype. The measured memory use for the different examples is listed in Table9 . From this table we note that for the large examples, i.... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 8: Run time (in seconds) for state space exploration using a PASSED list based on hash compaction with 47-bit signatures.

2001

"... In PAGE 34: ... To get as close as possible to a normal use situation, inclusion checking for WAIT is enabled in this experiment. The mea- sured run times are listed in Table8 . We note from the table that the combined scheme (signatures of the discrete part + packed zone) is somewhat faster, for all examples, than using only signatures.... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 8: Run time (in seconds) for state space exploration using a PASSED list based on hash compaction with 47-bit signatures.

2001

"... In PAGE 59: ... To get as close as possible to a normal use situation, inclusion checking for WAIT is enabled in this experiment. The mea- sured run times are listed in Table8 . We note from the table that the combined scheme (signatures of the discrete part + packed zone) is somewhat faster, for all examples, than using only signatures.... ..."

### Table 1. Completely exploring state spaces with BFS and several reduction methods.

2006

"... In PAGE 13: ... The main question to investigate is therefore how C2c performs in comparison to C2s. Table1 depicts results obtained by completely exploring the state space of some models using BFS as search algorithm in combination with various reduction methods: no partial-order reduction at all (no), no action ignoring prevention (C2i), C2v, C2s and C2c. Note that C2i leads to an unsound reduction.... In PAGE 14: ... Completely exploring state spaces with BFS and several reduction methods. By comparing the two previous sets of experiments we observe the following phenomenon: in model marriers, algorithm BFS with C2c explores as many states as BFS with C2i ( Table1 ), while A* with C2c explores almost twice the states than A* with C2i (Table 2). In other words, the C2c proviso is refuting ample sets when the search algorithm is A* but not when it is BFS.... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 1. Completely exploring state spaces with BFS and several reduction methods

"... In PAGE 13: ... The main question to investigate is therefore how C2c performs in compar- ison to C2s. Table1 depicts results obtained by completely exploring the state space of some models using BFS as search algorithm in combination with various reduction methods: no partial-order reduction at all (no), no action ignoring pre- vention (C2i), C2v, C2s and C2c. Note that C2i leads to an unsound reduction.... In PAGE 14: ...Intherestofthemodels both provisos work equally well. Bycomparingthetwoprevioussetsofexperiments we observe the following phenomenon: in the marriers model, algorithm BFS with C2c explores as many states as BFS with C2i ( Table1 ), while A* with C2c explores almost twice as many states as A* with C2i (Table 2). In other words, the C2c proviso is refuting Table 2.... ..."

### Table 1. Completely exploring state spaces with BFS and several reduction methods.

"... In PAGE 13: ... The main question to investigate is therefore how C2c performs in comparison to C2s. Table1... ..."

### Table 1. Completely exploring state spaces with BFS and several reduction methods. marriers(3)

"... In PAGE 8: ... The main question to investigate is therefore how C2o performs in comparison to C2s. Table1 depicts results obtained by exploring the state space of some models, where a depth bound is imposed in those cases where an exhaustive exploration is not feasible within a... In PAGE 9: ... For the remaining models both provisos either work equally well, or C2o prevails. By comparing the two previous sets of experiments we observe the following phenomenon: in the marriers model, algorithm BFS with C2o explores as many states as BFS with C2i ( Table1 ), while A* with C2o explores almost twice as many states as A* with C2i (Table 2). In other words, the C2o proviso is refuting ample sets when the search algorithm is A* but not when it is BFS.... ..."