fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2016
6th edition, Toruń, Poland, June 21, 2016
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («Known» 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 «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 221 0 140   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 304 57
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 384 0 Times tool wins 276 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(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 282 0 79   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 333 28
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 282 0 Times tool wins 341 20


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 155 52 206   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 326 87
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 267 0 Times tool wins 243 170


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 227 0 134   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 271 90
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 227 0 Times tool wins 315 46


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 239 0 122   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 321 40
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 239 0 Times tool wins 350 11


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 1050 runs (525 for LoLa and 525 for ydd-pt, 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 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 361 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 361 0
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 525 0 Times tool wins 361 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