fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2015
Bruxelles, Belgium, June 23, 2015
GreatSPN-Meddly compared to other tools («All» models, ReachabilityFireability)
Last Updated
August 19, 2015

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN-Meddly do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» models.

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in termsof both memory and execution time.The x-axis corresponds to the challenging tool where the y-axes represents GreatSPN-Meddly' performances. Thus, points below the diagonal of a chart denote comparisons favorables to the tool whileothers 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).

GreatSPN-Meddly versus Cunf

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 929 for Cunf, so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN-Meddly to Cunf are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  GreatSPN-Meddly Cunf Both tools   GreatSPN-Meddly Cunf
Computed OK 73 140 12   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 424 228 Times tool wins 73 152
Error detected 218 1 6   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 290 16 102 Times tool wins 73 152


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN-Meddly versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 929 for ITS-Tools, so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN-Meddly to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  GreatSPN-Meddly ITS-Tools Both tools   GreatSPN-Meddly ITS-Tools
Computed OK 58 424 27   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 228 0 0 Times tool wins 81 428
Error detected 94 146 130   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 297 107 95 Times tool wins 65 444


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN-Meddly versus LoLA2.0

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 929 for LoLA2.0, so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN-Meddly to LoLA2.0 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  GreatSPN-Meddly LoLA2.0 Both tools   GreatSPN-Meddly LoLA2.0
Computed OK 0 526 85   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 73 228 Times tool wins 30 581
Error detected 224 10 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 385 0 7 Times tool wins 41 570


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN-Meddly versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 929 for LTSMin, so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN-Meddly to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  GreatSPN-Meddly LTSMin Both tools   GreatSPN-Meddly LTSMin
Computed OK 2 525 83   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 228 0 0 Times tool wins 66 544
Error detected 212 4 12   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 315 228 77 Times tool wins 60 550


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN-Meddly versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 929 for Marcie, so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN-Meddly to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  GreatSPN-Meddly Marcie Both tools   GreatSPN-Meddly Marcie
Computed OK 18 338 67   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 228 0 0 Times tool wins 85 338
Error detected 224 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 129 260 263 Times tool wins 65 358


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN-Meddly versus TAPAAL(MC)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 929 for TAPAAL(MC), so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN-Meddly to TAPAAL(MC) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  GreatSPN-Meddly TAPAAL(MC) Both tools   GreatSPN-Meddly TAPAAL(MC)
Computed OK 12 483 73   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 73 228 Times tool wins 42 526
Error detected 219 10 5   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 348 13 44 Times tool wins 31 537


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN-Meddly versus TAPAAL(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 929 for TAPAAL(SEQ), so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN-Meddly to TAPAAL(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  GreatSPN-Meddly TAPAAL(SEQ) Both tools   GreatSPN-Meddly TAPAAL(SEQ)
Computed OK 0 529 85   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 73 228 Times tool wins 24 590
Error detected 222 0 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 380 0 12 Times tool wins 31 583


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN-Meddly versus TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 929 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR), so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN-Meddly to TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  GreatSPN-Meddly TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) Both tools   GreatSPN-Meddly TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)
Computed OK 48 133 37   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 73 228 Times tool wins 72 146
Error detected 222 38 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 123 149 269 Times tool wins 68 150


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN-Meddly versus TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 929 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ), so there are 929 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN-Meddly to TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  GreatSPN-Meddly TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Both tools   GreatSPN-Meddly TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)
Computed OK 39 266 46   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 73 228 Times tool wins 66 285
Error detected 224 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 198 120 194 Times tool wins 60 291


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart