Introduction
This page presents how LoLA2.0 do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityComputeBounds examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Stripped» models.
The next sections will show chart comparing performances in termsof both memory and execution time.The x-axis corresponds to the challenging tool where the y-axes represents LoLA2.0' performances. Thus, points below the diagonal of a chart denote comparisons favorables to the tool whileothers 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).
LoLA2.0 versus GreatSPN-Meddly
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for LoLA2.0 and 404 for GreatSPN-Meddly, so there are 404 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA2.0 to GreatSPN-Meddly are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the execution | ||||||
| LoLA2.0 | GreatSPN-Meddly | Both tools | LoLA2.0 | GreatSPN-Meddly | ||
| Computed OK | 141 | 0 | 119 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| Do not compete | 23 | 0 | 114 | Times tool wins | 206 | 54 |
| Error detected | 0 | 30 | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 0 | 134 | 7 | Times tool wins | 175 | 85 |
On the chart below, 
denote cases where
the two tools did computed a result, 
denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed,
denote the cases where at least one
tool did a mistake and 
denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.
LoLA2.0 versus LTSMin
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for LoLA2.0 and 404 for LTSMin, so there are 404 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA2.0 to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the execution | ||||||
| LoLA2.0 | LTSMin | Both tools | LoLA2.0 | LTSMin | ||
| Computed OK | 260 | 0 | 0 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| Do not compete | 137 | 266 | 0 | Times tool wins | 260 | 0 |
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 6 | 137 | 1 | Times tool wins | 260 | 0 |
On the chart below, denote cases where
the two tools did computed a result,
denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed,
denote the cases where at least one
tool did a mistake and
denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.
LoLA2.0 versus Marcie
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for LoLA2.0 and 404 for Marcie, so there are 404 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA2.0 to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the execution | ||||||
| LoLA2.0 | Marcie | Both tools | LoLA2.0 | Marcie | ||
| Computed OK | 145 | 37 | 115 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| Do not compete | 137 | 0 | 0 | Times tool wins | 220 | 77 |
| Error detected | 0 | 23 | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 1 | 223 | 6 | Times tool wins | 194 | 103 |
On the chart below, denote cases where
the two tools did computed a result,
denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed,
denote the cases where at least one
tool did a mistake and
denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.
LoLA2.0 versus TAPAAL(MC)
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for LoLA2.0 and 404 for TAPAAL(MC), so there are 404 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA2.0 to TAPAAL(MC) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the execution | ||||||
| LoLA2.0 | TAPAAL(MC) | Both tools | LoLA2.0 | TAPAAL(MC) | ||
| Computed OK | 180 | 0 | 80 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 137 | Times tool wins | 238 | 22 |
| Error detected | 0 | 1 | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 0 | 179 | 7 | Times tool wins | 214 | 46 |
On the chart below, denote cases where
the two tools did computed a result,
denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed,
denote the cases where at least one
tool did a mistake and
denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.
_ReachabilityComputeBounds.png)
_ReachabilityComputeBounds.png)
LoLA2.0 versus TAPAAL(SEQ)
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for LoLA2.0 and 404 for TAPAAL(SEQ), so there are 404 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA2.0 to TAPAAL(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the execution | ||||||
| LoLA2.0 | TAPAAL(SEQ) | Both tools | LoLA2.0 | TAPAAL(SEQ) | ||
| Computed OK | 0 | 2 | 260 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 137 | Times tool wins | 122 | 140 |
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 2 | 0 | 5 | Times tool wins | 220 | 42 |
On the chart below, denote cases where
the two tools did computed a result,
denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed,
denote the cases where at least one
tool did a mistake and
denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.
_ReachabilityComputeBounds.png)
_ReachabilityComputeBounds.png)
LoLA2.0 versus TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for LoLA2.0 and 404 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR), so there are 404 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA2.0 to TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the execution | ||||||
| LoLA2.0 | TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) | Both tools | LoLA2.0 | TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) | ||
| Computed OK | 200 | 0 | 60 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 137 | Times tool wins | 238 | 22 |
| Error detected | 0 | 27 | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 0 | 173 | 7 | Times tool wins | 225 | 35 |
On the chart below, denote cases where
the two tools did computed a result,
denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed,
denote the cases where at least one
tool did a mistake and
denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.
_ReachabilityComputeBounds.png)
_ReachabilityComputeBounds.png)
LoLA2.0 versus TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for LoLA2.0 and 404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ), so there are 404 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA2.0 to TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the execution | ||||||
| LoLA2.0 | TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) | Both tools | LoLA2.0 | TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) | ||
| Computed OK | 166 | 0 | 94 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 137 | Times tool wins | 222 | 38 |
| Error detected | 0 | 64 | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 0 | 102 | 7 | Times tool wins | 201 | 59 |
On the chart below, denote cases where
the two tools did computed a result,
denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed,
denote the cases where at least one
tool did a mistake and
denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.
_ReachabilityComputeBounds.png)
_ReachabilityComputeBounds.png)