fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2016
6th edition, Toruń, Poland, June 21, 2016
ITS-Tools compared to other tools (��Known�� 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 «Known» 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 1050 runs (525 for LoLa and 525 for ITS-Tools, so there are 525 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 148 64 213   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 337 88
Error detected 0 14 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 234 0 Times tool wins 324 101


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 1050 runs (525 for LoLa and 525 for LTSMin, so there are 525 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 0 361   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 319 42
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 0 0 Times tool wins 330 31


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 1050 runs (525 for LoLa and 525 for Tapaal(PAR), so there are 525 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 70 0 291   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 314 47
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 70 0 Times tool wins 310 51


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 1050 runs (525 for LoLa and 525 for Marcie, so there are 525 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 175 48 186   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 347 62
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 291 0 Times tool wins 348 61


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 1050 runs (525 for LoLa and 525 for PeCan, so there are 525 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 224 0 137   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 334 27
Error detected 0 120 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 104 0 Times tool wins 322 39


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 1050 runs (525 for LoLa and 525 for Tapaal(EXP), so there are 525 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 2 0 359   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 208 153
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 2 0 Times tool wins 338 23


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 1050 runs (525 for LoLa and 525 for Tapaal(SEQ), so there are 525 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 42 0 319   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 255 106
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 42 0 Times tool wins 339 22


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