fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2015
Bruxelles, Belgium, June 23, 2015
GreatSPN-Meddly compared to other tools («Surprise» 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 «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 LoLA2.0

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 121 for LoLA2.0, 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 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 53 38   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 12 80
Error detected 12 1 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 68 0 0 Times tool wins 15 77


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 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 39 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 94 0 Times tool wins 39 0
Error detected 14 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 41 0 27 Times tool wins 39 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 28 36   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 39 28
Error detected 5 1 9   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 28 7 40 Times tool wins 24 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(MC)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 121 for TAPAAL(MC), 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 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 13 17 26   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 19 37
Error detected 12 0 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 38 19 30 Times tool wins 15 41


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 242 runs (121 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 121 for TAPAAL(SEQ), 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 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 55 39   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 15 79
Error detected 14 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 68 0 0 Times tool wins 16 78


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 242 runs (121 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 121 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR), 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 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 17 9 22   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 27 21
Error detected 14 7 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 38 26 30 Times tool wins 24 24


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 242 runs (121 for GreatSPN-Meddly and 121 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ), 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 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 11 19 28   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 24 34
Error detected 14 9 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 48 18 20 Times tool wins 19 39


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