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

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN do cope efficiently with the StateSpace examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Known» 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 1616 runs (808 for GreatSPN and 808 for LTSMin, so there are 808 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 247 4 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 525 6
GreatSPN > LTSMin 280   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 513 18
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 102 164 179


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 1616 runs (808 for GreatSPN and 808 for Tapaal, so there are 808 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 332 6 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 458 75
GreatSPN > Tapaal 195   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 458 75
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 332 275


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 1616 runs (808 for GreatSPN and 808 for LoLA, so there are 808 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 527 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 527 0
GreatSPN > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 527 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 527 281


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 1616 runs (808 for GreatSPN and 808 for M4M.full, so there are 808 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 293 10 181   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = M4M.full 1 Times tool wins 514 23
GreatSPN > M4M.full 52   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < M4M.full 0 Times tool wins 504 33
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 10 293 271


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 1616 runs (808 for GreatSPN and 808 for M4M.struct, so there are 808 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 289 8 169   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = M4M.struct 2 Times tool wins 511 24
GreatSPN > M4M.struct 67   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < M4M.struct 0 Times tool wins 500 35
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 8 289 273


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 1616 runs (808 for GreatSPN and 808 for ITS-Tools, so there are 808 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 101 33 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools 6 Times tool wins 527 33
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools 420   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 448 112
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 33 101 248


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 1616 runs (808 for GreatSPN and 808 for ITS-Tools.L, so there are 808 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 121 34 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools.L 4 Times tool wins 527 34
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools.L 402   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools.L 0 Times tool wins 448 113
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 34 121 247


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 smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for GreatSPN and 808 for smart, so there are 808 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN smart Both tools   GreatSPN smart
All computed OK 251 2 272   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = smart 0 Times tool wins 480 49
GreatSPN > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < smart 4 Times tool wins 483 46
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 100 169 181


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 smart, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than smart, 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, smart wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus TINA.tedd

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for GreatSPN and 808 for TINA.tedd, so there are 808 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to TINA.tedd are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN TINA.tedd Both tools   GreatSPN TINA.tedd
All computed OK 41 44 468   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = TINA.tedd 0 Times tool wins 513 58
GreatSPN > TINA.tedd 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < TINA.tedd 18 Times tool wins 379 192
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 44 41 237


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 TINA.tedd, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than TINA.tedd, 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, TINA.tedd wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus Irma.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for GreatSPN and 808 for Irma.full, so there are 808 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 251 17 180   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Irma.full 2 Times tool wins 477 67
GreatSPN > Irma.full 78   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Irma.full 16 Times tool wins 442 102
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 243 264


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 1616 runs (808 for GreatSPN and 808 for Irma.struct, so there are 808 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 252 17 180   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Irma.struct 2 Times tool wins 477 67
GreatSPN > Irma.struct 77   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Irma.struct 16 Times tool wins 443 101
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 244 264


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