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

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN+red do cope efficiently with the CTLCardinality 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+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 208 runs (104 for GreatSPN+red and 104 for LTSMin+red, so there are 104 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 4 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN+red = LTSMin+red 26 Times tool wins 16 82
GreatSPN+red > LTSMin+red 68   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN+red < LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 4 94
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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+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 208 runs (104 for GreatSPN+red and 104 for ITS-Tools, so there are 104 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 2 1 31   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN+red = ITS-Tools 18 Times tool wins 40 59
GreatSPN+red > ITS-Tools 20   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN+red < ITS-Tools 27 Times tool wins 42 57
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 2 5


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 208 runs (104 for GreatSPN+red and 104 for LoLA, so there are 104 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 19 0 22   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN+red = LoLA 7 Times tool wins 57 41
GreatSPN+red > LoLA 32   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN+red < LoLA 18 Times tool wins 54 44
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 19 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 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 Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 208 runs (104 for GreatSPN+red and 104 for Tapaal, so there are 104 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 2 6 19   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN+red = Tapaal 5 Times tool wins 71 33
GreatSPN+red > Tapaal 11   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN+red < Tapaal 61 Times tool wins 43 61
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 2 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 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 2023-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 208 runs (104 for GreatSPN+red and 104 for 2023-gold, so there are 104 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 2 6 19   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN+red = 2023-gold 5 Times tool wins 76 28
GreatSPN+red > 2023-gold 11   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN+red < 2023-gold 61 Times tool wins 46 58
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 2 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 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 208 runs (104 for GreatSPN+red and 104 for BVT-2024, so there are 104 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 6 32   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN+red = BVT-2024 4 Times tool wins 0 104
GreatSPN+red > BVT-2024 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN+red < BVT-2024 62 Times tool wins 0 104
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 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 208 runs (104 for GreatSPN+red and 104 for GreatSPN, so there are 104 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 19 1 29   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN+red = GreatSPN 6 Times tool wins 45 54
GreatSPN+red > GreatSPN 18   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN+red < GreatSPN 26 Times tool wins 33 66
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 19 5


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