fond
Model Checking Contest 2019
9th edition, Prague, Czech Republic, April 7, 2019 (TOOLympics)
GreatSPN compared to other tools («All» models, UpperBounds)
Last Updated
Apr 15, 2019

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 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 ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for GreatSPN and 1018 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1018 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 119 67 441   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 494 134
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools 1   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 480 148
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 67 119 389


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.M

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for GreatSPN and 1018 for ITS-Tools.M, so there are 1018 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.M are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN ITS-Tools.M Both tools   GreatSPN ITS-Tools.M
All computed OK 79 69 482   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 521 109
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools.M 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 525 105
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 69 78 387


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.M, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than ITS-Tools.M, 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.M wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for GreatSPN and 1018 for LoLA, so there are 1018 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 7 393 473   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 535 419
GreatSPN > LoLA 81   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 398 556
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 393 7 64


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 LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for GreatSPN and 1018 for LTSMin, so there are 1018 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 73 337 362   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 294 604
GreatSPN > LTSMin 126   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 367 531
Do not compete 0 193 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 457 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 2036 runs (1018 for GreatSPN and 1018 for Tapaal, so there are 1018 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 0 431 526   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 131 861
GreatSPN > Tapaal 35   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 365 627
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 431 0 26


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 enPAC

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for GreatSPN and 1018 for enPAC, so there are 1018 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to enPAC are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN enPAC Both tools   GreatSPN enPAC
All computed OK 561 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = enPAC 0 Times tool wins 561 0
GreatSPN > enPAC 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < enPAC 0 Times tool wins 561 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 561 457


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

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for GreatSPN and 1018 for smart, so there are 1018 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 222 12 337   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = smart 0 Times tool wins 522 51
GreatSPN > smart 2   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < smart 0 Times tool wins 513 60
Do not compete 0 193 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 132 149 325


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 2018-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for GreatSPN and 1018 for 2018-Gold, so there are 1018 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to 2018-Gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN 2018-Gold Both tools   GreatSPN 2018-Gold
All computed OK 6 370 436   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = 2018-Gold 0 Times tool wins 128 803
GreatSPN > 2018-Gold 119   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < 2018-Gold 0 Times tool wins 148 783
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 370 6 87


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 2018-Gold, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than 2018-Gold, 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, 2018-Gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart