fond
Model Checking Contest 2020
10th edition, Paris, France, June 23, 2020
GreatSPN compared to other tools («All» models, CTLFireability)
Last Updated
Jun 28, 2020

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN do cope efficiently with the CTLFireability 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 2458 runs (1229 for GreatSPN and 1229 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1229 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 70 229 362   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools 18 Times tool wins 333 586
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools 133   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools 107 Times tool wins 499 420
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 229 70 308


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-LoLa

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for GreatSPN and 1229 for ITS-LoLa, so there are 1229 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 26 426 196   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-LoLa 8 Times tool wins 370 746
GreatSPN > ITS-LoLa 263   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-LoLa 197 Times tool wins 609 507
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 7 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 429 24 108


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.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for GreatSPN and 1229 for Tapaal, so there are 1229 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 5 486 208   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Tapaal 15 Times tool wins 590 586
GreatSPN > Tapaal 228   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Tapaal 234 Times tool wins 522 654
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 486 7 51


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 smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for GreatSPN and 1229 for smart, so there are 1229 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 515 2 38   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = smart 0 Times tool wins 686 6
GreatSPN > smart 136   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < smart 1 Times tool wins 667 25
Do not compete 0 213 0
Error detected 2 24 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 134 412 403


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 2019-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for GreatSPN and 1229 for 2019-Gold, so there are 1229 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 5 501 213   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = 2019-Gold 15 Times tool wins 374 817
GreatSPN > 2019-Gold 223   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < 2019-Gold 234 Times tool wins 524 667
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 501 7 36


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.

memory chart time chart