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

Introduction

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

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 121 for LTSMin, so there are 121 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 3 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 94 0 Times tool wins 3 0
Error detected 35 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 56 0 27 Times tool wins 3 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 242 runs (121 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 121 for Marcie, so there are 121 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 3 64 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 3 64
Error detected 35 4 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 31 1 52 Times tool wins 3 64


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