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

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN do cope efficiently with the OneSafe 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 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 12 429 711   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 381 771
GreatSPN > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 77 1075
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 429 12 77


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 362 3 361   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = smart 0 Times tool wins 716 10
GreatSPN > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < smart 0 Times tool wins 663 63
Do not compete 0 213 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 129 275 377


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