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

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN-Meddly do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireabilitySimple 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 95 125 34   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 424 228 Times tool wins 95 159
Error detected 187 0 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 283 16 100 Times tool wins 95 159


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 12 417 117   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 228 0 0 Times tool wins 97 449
Error detected 185 10 4   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 224 222 159 Times tool wins 57 489


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 0 487 129   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 73 228 Times tool wins 2 614
Error detected 186 2 3   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 376 0 7 Times tool wins 6 610


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 2 485 127   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 228 0 0 Times tool wins 102 512
Error detected 179 2 10   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 306 228 77 Times tool wins 79 535


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 12 290 117   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 228 0 0 Times tool wins 127 292
Error detected 189 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 124 263 259 Times tool wins 83 336


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 4 441 125   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 73 228 Times tool wins 36 534
Error detected 189 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 337 13 46 Times tool wins 26 544


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 0 487 129   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 73 228 Times tool wins 23 593
Error detected 189 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 371 0 12 Times tool wins 31 585


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 24 197 105   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 73 228 Times tool wins 63 263
Error detected 189 14 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 173 102 210 Times tool wins 42 284


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 31 264 98   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 73 228 Times tool wins 68 325
Error detected 189 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 227 110 156 Times tool wins 47 346


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