fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2015
Bruxelles, Belgium, June 23, 2015
LoLA2.0 compared to other tools (
Last Updated
August 19, 2015

Introduction

This page presents how LoLA2.0 do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityDeadlock examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» 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 Cunf

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for LoLA2.0 and 929 for Cunf, so there are 929 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 Cunf are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLA2.0 Cunf Both tools   LoLA2.0 Cunf
Computed OK 419 11 144   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 351 301 Times tool wins 474 100
Error detected 0 4 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 24 77 41 Times tool wins 442 132


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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA2.0 versus GreatSPN-Meddly

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for LoLA2.0 and 929 for GreatSPN-Meddly, so there are 929 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 258 18 305   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 73 0 228 Times tool wins 501 80
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 18 329 47 Times tool wins 499 82


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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA2.0 versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for LoLA2.0 and 929 for LTSMin, so there are 929 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 227 22 336   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 527 58
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 22 528 43 Times tool wins 494 91


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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA2.0 versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for LoLA2.0 and 929 for Marcie, so there are 929 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 248 91 315   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 510 144
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 13 471 52 Times tool wins 500 154


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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA2.0 versus TAPAAL(MC)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for LoLA2.0 and 929 for TAPAAL(MC), so there are 929 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 187 12 376   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 439 136
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 12 187 53 Times tool wins 372 203


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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA2.0 versus TAPAAL(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for LoLA2.0 and 929 for TAPAAL(SEQ), so there are 929 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 4 63 559   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 235 391
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 63 4 2 Times tool wins 287 339


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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA2.0 versus TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for LoLA2.0 and 929 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR), so there are 929 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 280 0 283   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 468 95
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 280 65 Times tool wins 480 83


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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA2.0 versus TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1858 runs (929 for LoLA2.0 and 929 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ), so there are 929 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 85 24 478   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 437 150
Error detected 0 23 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 24 62 41 Times tool wins 371 216


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.

memory chart time chart