fond
Model Checking Contest 2019
9th edition, Prague, Czech Republic, April 7, 2019 (TOOLympics)
GreatSPN compared to other tools («Surprise» 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 «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 ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 98 runs (49 for GreatSPN and 49 for ITS-Tools, so there are 49 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 27 4   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 3 28
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 3 28
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 27 0 18


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 98 runs (49 for GreatSPN and 49 for ITS-Tools.M, so there are 49 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 0 27 4   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 3 28
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools.M 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 2 29
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 27 0 18


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 98 runs (49 for GreatSPN and 49 for LoLA, so there are 49 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 32 4   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 4 32
GreatSPN > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 2 34
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 32 0 13


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 98 runs (49 for GreatSPN and 49 for Tapaal, so there are 49 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 37 4   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 0 41
GreatSPN > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 0 41
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 37 0 8


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 98 runs (49 for GreatSPN and 49 for enPAC, so there are 49 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 4 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = enPAC 0 Times tool wins 4 0
GreatSPN > enPAC 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < enPAC 0 Times tool wins 4 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 4 45


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 98 runs (49 for GreatSPN and 49 for 2018-Gold, so there are 49 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 37 4   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = 2018-Gold 0 Times tool wins 0 41
GreatSPN > 2018-Gold 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < 2018-Gold 0 Times tool wins 0 41
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 37 0 8


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