fond
Model Checking Contest 2021
11th edition, Paris, France, June 23, 2021
GreatSPN compared to other tools (��All�� models, LTLCardinality)
Last Updated
Jun 28, 2021

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN do cope efficiently with the LTLCardinality 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 1 623 288   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools 2 Times tool wins 247 980
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools 20   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools 293 Times tool wins 276 951
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 82 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 541 0 2


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 LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for GreatSPN and 1229 for 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 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 21 561 182   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LoLA 18 Times tool wins 159 1006
GreatSPN > LoLA 136   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LoLA 247 Times tool wins 295 870
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 82 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 487 27 56


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 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 0 606 282   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Tapaal 7 Times tool wins 145 1065
GreatSPN > Tapaal 26   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Tapaal 289 Times tool wins 227 983
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 82 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 524 0 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 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 2458 runs (1229 for GreatSPN and 1229 for enPAC, 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 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 1 610 180   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = enPAC 18 Times tool wins 263 951
GreatSPN > enPAC 150   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < enPAC 255 Times tool wins 256 958
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 82 3 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 530 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 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 2020-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for GreatSPN and 1229 for 2020-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 2020-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN 2020-gold Both tools   GreatSPN 2020-gold
All computed OK 6 583 234   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = 2020-gold 14 Times tool wins 418 769
GreatSPN > 2020-gold 84   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < 2020-gold 266 Times tool wins 527 660
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 79 21 3  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 521 2 22


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 2020-gold, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than 2020-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, 2020-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus BVT-2021

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for GreatSPN and 1229 for BVT-2021, 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 BVT-2021 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, GreatSPN is compared to BVT-2021. It is a good way to check how GreatSPN compete in terms of resource consomption with the best tools (even virtual). When GreatSPN is best, the corresponding plots are on the diagonal of the scatter plots chart.

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN BVT-2021 Both tools   GreatSPN BVT-2021
All computed OK 0 624 303   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = BVT-2021 1 Times tool wins 0 1228
GreatSPN > BVT-2021 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < BVT-2021 300 Times tool wins 0 1228
Do not compete 0 1 0
Error detected 82 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 543 0 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 BVT-2021, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than BVT-2021, 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, BVT-2021 wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart