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

Introduction

This page presents how LoLa 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 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 368 136 481   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 337 0 0 Times tool wins 776 209
Error detected 0 30 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 539 3 Times tool wins 751 234


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 0 3 849   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 751 101
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 0 0 Times tool wins 766 86


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 Tapaal(PAR)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for LoLa and 1189 for Tapaal(PAR), 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 Tapaal(PAR) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLa Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   LoLa Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 157 1 692   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 712 138
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 157 2 Times tool wins 730 120


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 Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for LoLa and 1189 for Marcie, 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 Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLa Marcie Both tools   LoLa Marcie
Computed OK 411 103 438   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 337 0 0 Times tool wins 814 138
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 646 1 Times tool wins 807 145


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 544 1 305   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 781 69
Error detected 0 283 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 261 2 Times tool wins 759 91


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 Tapaal(EXP)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for LoLa and 1189 for Tapaal(EXP), 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 Tapaal(EXP) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLa Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   LoLa Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 4 0 845   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 470 379
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 4 2 Times tool wins 764 85


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 Tapaal(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for LoLa and 1189 for Tapaal(SEQ), 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 Tapaal(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLa Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   LoLa Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 95 1 754   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 589 261
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 95 2 Times tool wins 771 79


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