fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2017
7th edition, Zaragoza, Spain, June 27, 2017
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («All» models, UpperBounds)
Last Updated
June 27, 2017

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN do cope efficiently with the UpperBounds 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' 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 versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for GreatSPN and 1019 for LTSMin, so there are 1019 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  GreatSPN LTSMin Both tools   GreatSPN LTSMin
Computed OK 88 368 395   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 256 0 Times tool wins 446 405
Error detected 4 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 532 0 0 Times tool wins 419 432


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for GreatSPN and 1019 for LoLA, so there are 1019 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  GreatSPN LoLA Both tools   GreatSPN LoLA
Computed OK 0 517 483   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 275 725
Error detected 4 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 513 0 19 Times tool wins 367 633


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for GreatSPN and 1019 for Tapaal, so there are 1019 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  GreatSPN Tapaal Both tools   GreatSPN Tapaal
Computed OK 299 15 184   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 256 0 Times tool wins 408 90
Error detected 4 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 179 211 353 Times tool wins 398 100


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for GreatSPN and 1019 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1019 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  GreatSPN ITS-Tools Both tools   GreatSPN ITS-Tools
Computed OK 130 71 353   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 428 126
Error detected 4 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 67 130 465 Times tool wins 374 180


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus MARCIE

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for GreatSPN and 1019 for MARCIE, so there are 1019 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to MARCIE are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  GreatSPN MARCIE Both tools   GreatSPN MARCIE
Computed OK 124 55 359   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 473 65
Error detected 4 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 51 124 481 Times tool wins 393 145


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart