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

Introduction

This page presents how LoLa do cope efficiently with the UpperBounds 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 526 0 323   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 337 0 0 Times tool wins 710 139
Error detected 0 5 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 858 3 Times tool wins 650 199


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 675 0 174   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 789 60
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 675 2 Times tool wins 792 57


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 368 111 481   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 337 0 0 Times tool wins 751 209
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 595 1 Times tool wins 560 400


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 543 0 306   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 630 219
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 543 3 Times tool wins 715 134


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 573 0 276   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 759 90
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 573 2 Times tool wins 812 37


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 ydd-pt

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

Statistics on the execution
  LoLa ydd-pt Both tools   LoLa ydd-pt
Computed OK 849 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 337 0 0 Times tool wins 849 0
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 1186 3 Times tool wins 849 0


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