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

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN-Meddly do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityBounds examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Known» 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 LoLA2.0

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 404 for LoLA2.0, so there are 404 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 1 170 94   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 23 114 Times tool wins 22 243
Error detected 52 1 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 141 0 0 Times tool wins 32 233


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 808 runs (404 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 404 for LTSMin, so there are 404 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 95 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 114 266 0 Times tool wins 95 0
Error detected 54 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 117 114 24 Times tool wins 95 0


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 808 runs (404 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 404 for Marcie, so there are 404 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 13 81 82   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 114 0 0 Times tool wins 95 81
Error detected 45 3 9   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 45 133 96 Times tool wins 66 110


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 808 runs (404 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 404 for TAPAAL(MC), so there are 404 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 39 103 56   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 23 114 Times tool wins 65 133
Error detected 54 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 72 39 69 Times tool wins 63 135


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 808 runs (404 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 404 for TAPAAL(SEQ), so there are 404 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 0 167 95   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 23 114 Times tool wins 54 208
Error detected 54 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 136 0 5 Times tool wins 66 196


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 808 runs (404 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 404 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR), so there are 404 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 44 26 51   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 23 114 Times tool wins 73 48
Error detected 54 11 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 39 77 102 Times tool wins 72 49


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 808 runs (404 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ), so there are 404 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 44 26 51   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 23 114 Times tool wins 73 48
Error detected 54 11 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 39 77 102 Times tool wins 73 48


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