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

Introduction

This page presents how GreatSPN do cope efficiently with the CTLFireability 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 364 runs (182 for GreatSPN and 182 for ITS-Tools, so there are 182 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 18 69 46   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = ITS-Tools 3 Times tool wins 68 94
GreatSPN > ITS-Tools 13   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < ITS-Tools 13 Times tool wins 78 84
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 4 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 67 20 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 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 364 runs (182 for GreatSPN and 182 for LoLA, so there are 182 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 18 51 25   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = LoLA 3 Times tool wins 43 101
GreatSPN > LoLA 30   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < LoLA 17 Times tool wins 44 100
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 4 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 49 20 36


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 364 runs (182 for GreatSPN and 182 for Tapaal, so there are 182 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 16 87 21   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = Tapaal 2 Times tool wins 86 94
GreatSPN > Tapaal 34   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < Tapaal 20 Times tool wins 82 98
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 4 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 85 17 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 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 2020-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 364 runs (182 for GreatSPN and 182 for 2020-gold, so there are 182 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 16 87 23   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = 2020-gold 1 Times tool wins 88 92
GreatSPN > 2020-gold 33   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < 2020-gold 20 Times tool wins 83 97
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 4 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 85 17 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 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 364 runs (182 for GreatSPN and 182 for BVT-2021, so there are 182 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 2 87 59   Smallest Memory Footprint
GreatSPN = BVT-2021 2 Times tool wins 2 178
GreatSPN > BVT-2021 0   Shortest Execution Time
GreatSPN < BVT-2021 30 Times tool wins 2 178
Do not compete 0 2 0
Error detected 4 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 85 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