fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2015
Bruxelles, Belgium, June 23, 2015
LoLA2.0 compared to other tools («Surprise» models, ReachabilityFireabilitySimple)
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 «Surprise» 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 242 runs (121 for LoLA2.0 and 121 for Cunf, so there are 121 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 84 0 9   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 71 27 Times tool wins 88 5
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 14 0 Times tool wins 87 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 GreatSPN-Meddly

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for LoLA2.0 and 121 for GreatSPN-Meddly, so there are 121 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 78 0 15   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 93 0
Error detected 0 22 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 83 0 Times tool wins 93 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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA2.0 versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for LoLA2.0 and 121 for ITS-Tools, so there are 121 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 25 25 68   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 93 25
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 28 0 Times tool wins 91 27


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 242 runs (121 for LoLA2.0 and 121 for LTSMin, so there are 121 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 0 1 93   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 90 4
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 27 0 Times tool wins 81 13


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 242 runs (121 for LoLA2.0 and 121 for Marcie, so there are 121 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 36 15 57   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 93 15
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 49 0 Times tool wins 93 15


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 242 runs (121 for LoLA2.0 and 121 for TAPAAL(MC), so there are 121 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 4 1 89   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 82 12
Error detected 1 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 3 0 Times tool wins 49 45


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 242 runs (121 for LoLA2.0 and 121 for TAPAAL(SEQ), so there are 121 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 1 93   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 62 32
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 0 0 Times tool wins 51 43


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 242 runs (121 for LoLA2.0 and 121 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR), so there are 121 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 35 0 58   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 64 29
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 36 0 Times tool wins 53 40


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 242 runs (121 for LoLA2.0 and 121 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ), so there are 121 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 27 0 66   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 84 9
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 28 0 Times tool wins 57 36


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