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

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN do cope efficiently with the StateSpace 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 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 8 8 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 38 13
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools 35   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 41 10
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 8 8 10


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 tedd-c

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for GreatSPN and 61 for tedd-c, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to tedd-c are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN tedd-c Both tools   GreatSPN tedd-c
All computed OK 0 6 43   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = tedd-c 0 Times tool wins 32 17
GreatSPN > tedd-c 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < tedd-c 0 Times tool wins 38 11
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 0 12


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 tedd-c, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than tedd-c, 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, tedd-c 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 1 hour 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 43 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 43 0
GreatSPN > LoLa+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 43 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 43 18


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 1 hour 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 19 2 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 42 3
GreatSPN > LTSMin+red 24   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 43 2
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 19 16


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 1 hour 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 9 8 30   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 42 9
GreatSPN > Marcie+red 4   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 41 10
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 8 9 10


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 1 hour 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 10 8 33   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Smart+red 0 Times tool wins 33 18
GreatSPN > Smart+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Smart+red 0 Times tool wins 38 13
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 8 10 10


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 1 hour 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 0 6 43   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 30 19
GreatSPN > 2022-gold 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 41 8
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 0 12


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 1 hour 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 9 43   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 52
GreatSPN > BVT-2023 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 52
Do not compete 0 9 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 18 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 LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for GreatSPN and 61 for LTSMin, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN LTSMin Both tools   GreatSPN LTSMin
All computed OK 19 2 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 41 4
GreatSPN > LTSMin 24   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 41 4
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 19 16


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

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for GreatSPN and 61 for Marcie, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN Marcie Both tools   GreatSPN Marcie
All computed OK 9 8 30   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Marcie 0 Times tool wins 42 9
GreatSPN > Marcie 4   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Marcie 0 Times tool wins 41 10
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 8 9 10


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

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN versus pnmc

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for GreatSPN and 61 for pnmc, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN to pnmc are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN pnmc Both tools   GreatSPN pnmc
All computed OK 13 6 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = pnmc 0 Times tool wins 41 8
GreatSPN > pnmc 30   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < pnmc 0 Times tool wins 41 8
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 13 12


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 pnmc, denote cases where GreatSPN computed less values than pnmc, 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, pnmc 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 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 19 4 24   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Smart 0 Times tool wins 37 10
GreatSPN > Smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Smart 0 Times tool wins 41 6
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 19 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, 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