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

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality 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 ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for GreatSPN and 969 for ITS-Tools, so there are 969 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 7 507 288   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 221 613
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools 19   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools 13 Times tool wins 208 626
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 507 7 135


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 1938 runs (969 for GreatSPN and 969 for ITS-Tools.M, so there are 969 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 16 458 291   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 228 557
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools.M 8   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools.M 12 Times tool wins 227 558
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 459 16 179


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 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 1938 runs (969 for GreatSPN and 969 for LoLA, so there are 969 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 3 605 292   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 268 664
GreatSPN > LoLA 18   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LoLA 14 Times tool wins 183 749
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 3 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 607 2 35


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 Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for GreatSPN and 969 for Tapaal, so there are 969 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 0 638 309   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 26 939
GreatSPN > Tapaal 4   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Tapaal 14 Times tool wins 63 902
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 638 0 4


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 1938 runs (969 for GreatSPN and 969 for enPAC, so there are 969 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 327 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = enPAC 0 Times tool wins 327 0
GreatSPN > enPAC 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < enPAC 0 Times tool wins 327 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 327 642


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 2018-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for GreatSPN and 969 for 2018-Gold, so there are 969 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 0 639 309   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = 2018-Gold 0 Times tool wins 26 940
GreatSPN > 2018-Gold 4   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < 2018-Gold 14 Times tool wins 61 905
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 639 0 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 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