fond
Model Checking Contest 2024
14th edition, Geneva, Switzerland, June 25, 2024
GreatSPN+red compared to other tools («All» models, ReachabilityFireability)
Last Updated
July 7, 2024

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN+red do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability 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+red' 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+red versus LTSMin+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for GreatSPN+red and 1782 for LTSMin+red, so there are 1782 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN+red to LTSMin+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN+red LTSMin+red Both tools   GreatSPN+red LTSMin+red
All computed OK 2 2 1260   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN+red = LTSMin+red 276 Times tool wins 771 1005
GreatSPN+red > LTSMin+red 179   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN+red < LTSMin+red 57 Times tool wins 648 1128
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 2  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 2 4


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+red computed more values than LTSMin+red, denote cases where GreatSPN+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN+red versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for GreatSPN+red and 1782 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1782 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN+red to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN+red ITS-Tools Both tools   GreatSPN+red ITS-Tools
All computed OK 7 2 1348   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN+red = ITS-Tools 175 Times tool wins 1099 677
GreatSPN+red > ITS-Tools 74   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN+red < ITS-Tools 170 Times tool wins 888 888
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 2  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 7 4


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+red computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where GreatSPN+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN+red versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for GreatSPN+red and 1782 for LoLA, so there are 1782 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN+red to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN+red LoLA Both tools   GreatSPN+red LoLA
All computed OK 219 5 898   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN+red = LoLA 29 Times tool wins 780 999
GreatSPN+red > LoLA 498   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN+red < LoLA 130 Times tool wins 932 847
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 29 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 190 3


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+red computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where GreatSPN+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN+red versus smpt

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for GreatSPN+red and 1782 for smpt, so there are 1782 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN+red to smpt are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN+red smpt Both tools   GreatSPN+red smpt
All computed OK 16 3 1170   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN+red = smpt 104 Times tool wins 774 1003
GreatSPN+red > smpt 279   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN+red < smpt 205 Times tool wins 1199 578
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 2  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 16 3


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

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN+red versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for GreatSPN+red and 1782 for Tapaal, so there are 1782 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN+red to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN+red Tapaal Both tools   GreatSPN+red Tapaal
All computed OK 23 4 1128   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN+red = Tapaal 35 Times tool wins 309 1469
GreatSPN+red > Tapaal 335   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN+red < Tapaal 253 Times tool wins 1050 728
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 23 3


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+red computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where GreatSPN+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN+red versus SVSKit

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for GreatSPN+red and 1782 for SVSKit, so there are 1782 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN+red to SVSKit are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN+red SVSKit Both tools   GreatSPN+red SVSKit
All computed OK 1702 0 72   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN+red = SVSKit 0 Times tool wins 1702 72
GreatSPN+red > SVSKit 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN+red < SVSKit 0 Times tool wins 1754 20
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 11 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 1693 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+red computed more values than SVSKit, denote cases where GreatSPN+red computed less values than SVSKit, 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, SVSKit wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN+red versus 2023-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for GreatSPN+red and 1782 for 2023-gold, so there are 1782 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN+red to 2023-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN+red 2023-gold Both tools   GreatSPN+red 2023-gold
All computed OK 9 2 1308   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN+red = 2023-gold 109 Times tool wins 1075 701
GreatSPN+red > 2023-gold 126   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN+red < 2023-gold 222 Times tool wins 1368 408
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 7 2  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 2 4


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+red computed more values than 2023-gold, denote cases where GreatSPN+red computed less values than 2023-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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, 2023-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN+red versus BVT-2024

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for GreatSPN+red and 1782 for BVT-2024, so there are 1782 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN+red to BVT-2024 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, GreatSPN+red is compared to BVT-2024. It is a good way to check how GreatSPN+red compete in terms of resource consomption with the best tools (even virtual). When GreatSPN+red is best, the corresponding plots are on the diagonal of the scatter plots chart.

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN+red BVT-2024 Both tools   GreatSPN+red BVT-2024
All computed OK 0 7 1371   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN+red = BVT-2024 39 Times tool wins 0 1781
GreatSPN+red > BVT-2024 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN+red < BVT-2024 364 Times tool wins 0 1781
Do not compete 0 1 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 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+red computed more values than BVT-2024, denote cases where GreatSPN+red computed less values than BVT-2024, 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, BVT-2024 wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

GreatSPN+red versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for GreatSPN+red and 1782 for GreatSPN, so there are 1782 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing GreatSPN+red to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  GreatSPN+red GreatSPN Both tools   GreatSPN+red GreatSPN
All computed OK 773 0 580   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN+red = GreatSPN 2 Times tool wins 1406 368
GreatSPN+red > GreatSPN 406   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN+red < GreatSPN 13 Times tool wins 1456 318
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 775 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+red computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where GreatSPN+red computed less values than GreatSPN, 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart