Model Checking Contest 2018
8th edition, Bratislava, Slovakia, June 26, 2018
GreatSPN compared to other tools (��Surprise�� 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 «Surprise» 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 278 runs (139 for GreatSPN and 139 for LTSMin, so there are 139 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 0 109 22 Smallest Memory Footprint GreatSPN = LTSMin — — 0 Times tool wins 30 109 GreatSPN > LTSMin — — 8 Shortest Execution Time GreatSPN < LTSMin — — 0 Times tool wins 22 117 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 109 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.

GreatSPN versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for GreatSPN and 139 for Tapaal, so there are 139 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 0 109 13 Smallest Memory Footprint GreatSPN = Tapaal — — 0 Times tool wins 24 115 GreatSPN > Tapaal — — 17 Shortest Execution Time GreatSPN < Tapaal — — 0 Times tool wins 24 115 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 109 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 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.

GreatSPN versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for GreatSPN and 139 for LoLA, so there are 139 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 2 106 7 Smallest Memory Footprint GreatSPN = LoLA — — 0 Times tool wins 21 115 GreatSPN > LoLA — — 21 Shortest Execution Time GreatSPN < LoLA — — 0 Times tool wins 25 111 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 106 2 3

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.

GreatSPN versus M4M.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for GreatSPN and 139 for M4M.full, so there are 139 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 30 0 0 Smallest Memory Footprint GreatSPN = M4M.full — — 0 Times tool wins 30 0 GreatSPN > M4M.full — — 0 Shortest Execution Time GreatSPN < M4M.full — — 0 Times tool wins 30 0 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 30 109

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.

GreatSPN versus M4M.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for GreatSPN and 139 for M4M.struct, so there are 139 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 30 0 0 Smallest Memory Footprint GreatSPN = M4M.struct — — 0 Times tool wins 30 0 GreatSPN > M4M.struct — — 0 Shortest Execution Time GreatSPN < M4M.struct — — 0 Times tool wins 30 0 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 30 109

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.

GreatSPN versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for GreatSPN and 139 for ITS-Tools, so there are 139 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 1 25 27 Smallest Memory Footprint GreatSPN = ITS-Tools — — 0 Times tool wins 30 25 GreatSPN > ITS-Tools — — 2 Shortest Execution Time GreatSPN < ITS-Tools — — 0 Times tool wins 18 37 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 25 1 84

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.

GreatSPN versus ITS-Tools.L

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for GreatSPN and 139 for ITS-Tools.L, so there are 139 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 1 21 25 Smallest Memory Footprint GreatSPN = ITS-Tools.L — — 0 Times tool wins 30 21 GreatSPN > ITS-Tools.L — — 4 Shortest Execution Time GreatSPN < ITS-Tools.L — — 0 Times tool wins 17 34 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 21 1 88

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.

GreatSPN versus Irma.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for GreatSPN and 139 for Irma.full, so there are 139 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 30 0 0 Smallest Memory Footprint GreatSPN = Irma.full — — 0 Times tool wins 30 0 GreatSPN > Irma.full — — 0 Shortest Execution Time GreatSPN < Irma.full — — 0 Times tool wins 30 0 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 30 109

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.

GreatSPN versus Irma.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for GreatSPN and 139 for Irma.struct, so there are 139 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 30 0 0 Smallest Memory Footprint GreatSPN = Irma.struct — — 0 Times tool wins 30 0 GreatSPN > Irma.struct — — 0 Shortest Execution Time GreatSPN < Irma.struct — — 0 Times tool wins 30 0 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 30 109

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.