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 ReachabilityFireabilitySimple 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 458 1 158   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 351 301 Times tool wins 505 112
Error detected 5 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 112 4 Times tool wins 479 138


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 487 0 129   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 73 0 228 Times tool wins 614 2
Error detected 2 186 3   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 376 7 Times tool wins 610 6


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 199 117 417   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 613 120
Error detected 5 14 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 374 7 Times tool wins 596 137


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 14 10 602   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 578 48
Error detected 5 12 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 5 303 2 Times tool wins 563 63


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 298 89 318   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 301 0 0 Times tool wins 616 89
Error detected 5 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 515 7 Times tool wins 602 103


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.

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 55 5 561   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 538 83
Error detected 5 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 52 7 Times tool wins 426 195


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 6 6 610   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 395 227
Error detected 5 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 6 6 Times tool wins 460 162


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 314 0 302   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 513 103
Error detected 5 14 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 305 7 Times tool wins 513 103


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.

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 254 0 362   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 301 Times tool wins 557 59
Error detected 5 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 259 7 Times tool wins 498 118


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