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

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality 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 0 106 25   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 33 106
GreatSPN > LTSMin 8   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 23 116
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 106 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 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 0 106 33   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 4 135
GreatSPN > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 5 134
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 106 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.

memory chart time chart

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 0 104 29   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 7 130
GreatSPN > LoLA 4   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 10 127
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 104 0 2


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 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 33 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = M4M.full 0 Times tool wins 33 0
GreatSPN > M4M.full 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < M4M.full 0 Times tool wins 33 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 33 106


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 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 33 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = M4M.struct 0 Times tool wins 33 0
GreatSPN > M4M.struct 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < M4M.struct 0 Times tool wins 33 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 33 106


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 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 0 66 33   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 33 66
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 11 88
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 66 0 40


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 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 0 64 33   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools.L 0 Times tool wins 33 64
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools.L 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools.L 0 Times tool wins 18 79
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 64 0 42


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 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 33 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Irma.full 0 Times tool wins 33 0
GreatSPN > Irma.full 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Irma.full 0 Times tool wins 33 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 33 106


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 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 33 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Irma.struct 0 Times tool wins 33 0
GreatSPN > Irma.struct 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Irma.struct 0 Times tool wins 33 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 33 106


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