fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2016
6th edition, Toruń, Poland, June 21, 2016
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («All» models, LTLCardinality)
Last Updated
June 30, 2016

Introduction

This page presents how LoLa do cope efficiently with the LTLCardinality 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 LoLa' 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).

LoLa versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for LoLa and 1189 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLa to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLa ITS-Tools Both tools   LoLa ITS-Tools
Computed OK 478 26 344   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 337 0 0 Times tool wins 657 191
Error detected 26 16 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 800 3 Times tool wins 712 136


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

LoLa versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for LoLa and 1189 for LTSMin, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLa to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLa LTSMin Both tools   LoLa LTSMin
Computed OK 1 30 821   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 401 451
Error detected 26 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 0 0 Times tool wins 206 646


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

LoLa versus PeCan

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for LoLa and 1189 for PeCan, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLa to PeCan are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLa PeCan Both tools   LoLa PeCan
Computed OK 247 22 575   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 455 389
Error detected 20 26 6   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 221 2 Times tool wins 425 419


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart