fond
Model Checking Contest 2018
8th edition, Bratislava, Slovakia, June 26, 2018
GreatSPN compared to other tools («All» models, CTLFireability)
Last Updated
June 26, 2018

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN do cope efficiently with the CTLFireability examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» models.

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in terms of 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 while others 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 1894 runs (947 for GreatSPN and 947 for LTSMin, so there are 947 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 executions
  GreatSPN LTSMin Both tools   GreatSPN LTSMin
All computed OK 37 471 207   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LTSMin 2 Times tool wins 320 483
GreatSPN > LTSMin 86   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 282 521
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 615 0 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where GreatSPN computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than LTSMin, 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.

GreatSPN wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for GreatSPN and 947 for Tapaal, so there are 947 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 executions
  GreatSPN Tapaal Both tools   GreatSPN Tapaal
All computed OK 0 601 164   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Tapaal 2 Times tool wins 267 666
GreatSPN > Tapaal 155   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Tapaal 11 Times tool wins 292 641
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 602 0 13


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where GreatSPN computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than Tapaal, 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.

GreatSPN wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for GreatSPN and 947 for LoLA, so there are 947 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 executions
  GreatSPN LoLA Both tools   GreatSPN LoLA
All computed OK 19 565 117   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LoLA 1 Times tool wins 210 687
GreatSPN > LoLA 185   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LoLA 10 Times tool wins 264 633
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 566 19 49


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where GreatSPN computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than LoLA, 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.

GreatSPN wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus M4M.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for GreatSPN and 947 for M4M.full, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to M4M.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN M4M.full Both tools   GreatSPN M4M.full
All computed OK 166 366 65   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = M4M.full 1 Times tool wins 305 393
GreatSPN > M4M.full 99   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < M4M.full 1 Times tool wins 303 395
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 366 166 249


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where GreatSPN computed more values than M4M.full, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than M4M.full, 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.

GreatSPN wins when points are below the diagonal, M4M.full wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus M4M.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for GreatSPN and 947 for M4M.struct, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to M4M.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN M4M.struct Both tools   GreatSPN M4M.struct
All computed OK 179 230 117   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = M4M.struct 1 Times tool wins 304 258
GreatSPN > M4M.struct 35   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < M4M.struct 0 Times tool wins 306 256
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 230 177 385


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where GreatSPN computed more values than M4M.struct, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than M4M.struct, 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.

GreatSPN wins when points are below the diagonal, M4M.struct wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for GreatSPN and 947 for ITS-Tools, so there are 947 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 executions
  GreatSPN ITS-Tools Both tools   GreatSPN ITS-Tools
All computed OK 39 132 263   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools 3 Times tool wins 332 132
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools 19   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools 8 Times tool wins 258 206
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 132 39 483


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where GreatSPN computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than ITS-Tools, 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.

GreatSPN wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus ITS-Tools.L

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for GreatSPN and 947 for ITS-Tools.L, so there are 947 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.L are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN ITS-Tools.L Both tools   GreatSPN ITS-Tools.L
All computed OK 47 116 251   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools.L 9 Times tool wins 331 117
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools.L 22   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools.L 3 Times tool wins 253 195
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 116 47 499


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where GreatSPN computed more values than ITS-Tools.L, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than ITS-Tools.L, 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.

GreatSPN wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools.L wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus Irma.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for GreatSPN and 947 for Irma.full, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to Irma.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN Irma.full Both tools   GreatSPN Irma.full
All computed OK 166 387 119   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Irma.full 1 Times tool wins 302 417
GreatSPN > Irma.full 45   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Irma.full 1 Times tool wins 298 421
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 387 166 228


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where GreatSPN computed more values than Irma.full, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than Irma.full, 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.

GreatSPN wins when points are below the diagonal, Irma.full wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus Irma.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for GreatSPN and 947 for Irma.struct, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to Irma.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN Irma.struct Both tools   GreatSPN Irma.struct
All computed OK 167 385 119   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Irma.struct 1 Times tool wins 302 415
GreatSPN > Irma.struct 44   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Irma.struct 1 Times tool wins 296 421
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 385 167 230


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where GreatSPN computed more values than Irma.struct, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than Irma.struct, 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.

GreatSPN wins when points are below the diagonal, Irma.struct wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart