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

Introduction

This page presents how LoLa do cope efficiently with the CTLCardinality examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Stripped» 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 228 0 131   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 292 67
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 390 2 Times tool wins 288 71


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 2 359   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 196 165
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 0 0 Times tool wins 291 70


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 236 0 123   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 280 79
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 236 2 Times tool wins 332 27


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 183 34 176   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 298 95
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 314 1 Times tool wins 274 119


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 11 0 348   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 151 208
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 9 2 Times tool wins 296 63


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