fond
Model Checking Contest 2023
13th edition, Paris, France, April 26, 2023 (at TOOLympics II)
GreatSPN compared to other tools («Surprise» models, Liveness)
Last Updated
May 14, 2023

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN do cope efficiently with the Liveness 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 122 runs (61 for GreatSPN and 61 for ITS-Tools, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes 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 24 21   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 18 29
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 18 29
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 24 2 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 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 Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for GreatSPN and 61 for Tapaal, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes 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 9 12 14   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 12 23
GreatSPN > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 17 18
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 12 9 26


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 LoLa+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for GreatSPN and 61 for LoLa+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to LoLa+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN LoLa+red Both tools   GreatSPN LoLa+red
All computed OK 7 26 16   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 17 32
GreatSPN > LoLa+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 17 32
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 27 6 11


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+red, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than LoLa+red, 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+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus LTSMin+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for GreatSPN and 61 for LTSMin+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to LTSMin+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN LTSMin+red Both tools   GreatSPN LTSMin+red
All computed OK 11 20 12   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 19 24
GreatSPN > LTSMin+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 19 24
Do not compete 0 23 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 32 0 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 LTSMin+red, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than LTSMin+red, 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, LTSMin+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus Marcie+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for GreatSPN and 61 for Marcie+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to Marcie+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN Marcie+red Both tools   GreatSPN Marcie+red
All computed OK 11 20 12   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 20 23
GreatSPN > Marcie+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 19 24
Do not compete 0 23 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 32 0 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 Marcie+red, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than Marcie+red, 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, Marcie+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus Smart+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for GreatSPN and 61 for Smart+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to Smart+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN Smart+red Both tools   GreatSPN Smart+red
All computed OK 9 24 14   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Smart+red 0 Times tool wins 18 29
GreatSPN > Smart+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Smart+red 0 Times tool wins 19 28
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 5 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 24 4 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 Smart+red, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than Smart+red, 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+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus 2022-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for GreatSPN and 61 for 2022-gold, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to 2022-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN 2022-gold Both tools   GreatSPN 2022-gold
All computed OK 11 18 12   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 20 21
GreatSPN > 2022-gold 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 20 21
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 18 11 20


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 2022-gold, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than 2022-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, 2022-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus BVT-2023

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for GreatSPN and 61 for BVT-2023, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to BVT-2023 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, GreatSPN is compared to BVT-2023. 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-2023 Both tools   GreatSPN BVT-2023
All computed OK 0 28 23   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 51
GreatSPN > BVT-2023 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 51
Do not compete 0 10 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 38 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-2023, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than BVT-2023, 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-2023 wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for GreatSPN and 61 for LoLA, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes 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 6 23 17   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 13 33
GreatSPN > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 6 40
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 23 6 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 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 Smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for GreatSPN and 61 for Smart, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes 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 19 0 4   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Smart 0 Times tool wins 20 3
GreatSPN > Smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Smart 0 Times tool wins 23 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 19 38


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