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

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN-Meddly do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityComputeBounds examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Stripped» 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 0 141 119   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 23 114 Times tool wins 54 206
Error detected 30 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 134 0 7 Times tool wins 85 175


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 119 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 114 266 0 Times tool wins 119 0
Error detected 30 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 117 114 24 Times tool wins 119 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 42 75 77   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 114 0 0 Times tool wins 119 75
Error detected 12 5 18   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 46 134 95 Times tool wins 98 96


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 65 26 54   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 23 114 Times tool wins 92 53
Error detected 30 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 30 75 111 Times tool wins 90 55


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 0 143 119   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 23 114 Times tool wins 69 193
Error detected 30 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 136 0 5 Times tool wins 93 169


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 79 20 40   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 23 114 Times tool wins 96 43
Error detected 30 27 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 39 78 102 Times tool wins 96 43


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 72 47 47   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 23 114 Times tool wins 94 72
Error detected 28 62 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 82 50 59 Times tool wins 91 75


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