fond
Model Checking Contest 2020
10th edition, Paris, France, June 23, 2020
GreatSPN compared to other tools («Surprise» 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 «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 22 19 62   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools 1 Times tool wins 73 74
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools 31   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools 12 Times tool wins 94 53
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 22 64


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 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 77 31   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-LoLa 1 Times tool wins 67 138
GreatSPN > ITS-LoLa 53   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-LoLa 39 Times tool wins 100 105
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 75 4 6


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 422 runs (211 for GreatSPN and 211 for Tapaal, 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 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 66 38   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Tapaal 2 Times tool wins 112 82
GreatSPN > Tapaal 43   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Tapaal 40 Times tool wins 85 109
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 66 7 15


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 422 runs (211 for GreatSPN and 211 for smart, 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 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 98 0 7   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = smart 0 Times tool wins 128 0
GreatSPN > smart 23   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < smart 0 Times tool wins 123 5
Do not compete 0 20 0
Error detected 2 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 93 67


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 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 5 67 40   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = 2019-Gold 2 Times tool wins 82 113
GreatSPN > 2019-Gold 41   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < 2019-Gold 40 Times tool wins 84 111
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 67 7 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.

memory chart time chart