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 ReachabilityFireability 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 461 2 150   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 351 301 Times tool wins 489 124
Error detected 10 7 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 113 5 Times tool wins 468 145


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 526 0 85   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 73 0 228 Times tool wins 581 30
Error detected 10 224 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 385 7 Times tool wins 570 41


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 ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  LoLA2.0 ITS-Tools Both tools   LoLA2.0 ITS-Tools
Computed OK 366 206 245   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 558 259
Error detected 6 272 4   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 196 6 Times tool wins 504 313


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 18 15 593   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 495 131
Error detected 10 16 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 5 303 2 Times tool wins 446 180


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 299 93 312   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 559 145
Error detected 10 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 517 6 Times tool wins 520 184


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 65 10 546   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 485 136
Error detected 10 15 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 50 7 Times tool wins 333 288


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 8 11 603   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 394 228
Error detected 10 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 6 6 Times tool wins 396 226


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 441 0 170   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 562 49
Error detected 7 37 3   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 411 7 Times tool wins 550 61


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 307 8 304   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 504 115
Error detected 10 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 307 7 Times tool wins 496 123


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