Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN do cope efficiently with the LTLFireability 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 422 runs (211 for GreatSPN and 211 for ITS-Tools, so there are 211 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	2	123	32		Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools	—	—	4	Times tool wins	42	168
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools	—	—	22		Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools	—	—	27	Times tool wins	40	170
Do not compete	0	0	0
Error detected	40	0	0
Cannot Compute + Time-out	83	2	1

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-LoLa

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 422 runs (211 for GreatSPN and 211 for ITS-LoLa, so there are 211 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-LoLa are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
	GreatSPN	ITS-LoLa	Both tools		GreatSPN	ITS-LoLa
All computed OK	4	124	26		Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-LoLa	—	—	5	Times tool wins	41	170
GreatSPN > ITS-LoLa	—	—	11		Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-LoLa	—	—	41	Times tool wins	63	148
Do not compete	0	0	0
Error detected	40	2	0
Cannot Compute + Time-out	84	2	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 ITS-LoLa, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than ITS-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, ITS-LoLa wins when points are above the diagonal.

GreatSPN versus enPAC

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 422 runs (211 for GreatSPN and 211 for enPAC, so there are 211 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	13	96	15		Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = enPAC	—	—	3	Times tool wins	87	96
GreatSPN > enPAC	—	—	21		Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < enPAC	—	—	35	Times tool wins	50	133
Do not compete	0	0	0
Error detected	35	11	5
Cannot Compute + Time-out	65	6	19

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.

GreatSPN versus 2019-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 422 runs (211 for GreatSPN and 211 for 2019-Gold, so there are 211 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to 2019-Gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
	GreatSPN	2019-Gold	Both tools		GreatSPN	2019-Gold
All computed OK	4	108	21		Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = 2019-Gold	—	—	6	Times tool wins	42	153
GreatSPN > 2019-Gold	—	—	19		Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < 2019-Gold	—	—	37	Times tool wins	52	143
Do not compete	0	0	0
Error detected	40	0	0
Cannot Compute + Time-out	70	6	14

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 2019-Gold, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than 2019-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, 2019-Gold wins when points are above the diagonal.