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

Introduction

This page presents how LoLa do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityDeadlock 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 178 59 181   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 347 71
Error detected 0 6 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 278 1 Times tool wins 336 82


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 175 1 184   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 336 24
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 175 1 Times tool wins 323 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 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 253 0 106   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 330 29
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 253 2 Times tool wins 340 19


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 163 47 196   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 346 60
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 281 1 Times tool wins 340 66


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 21 0 338   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 319 40
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 21 2 Times tool wins 302 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 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 108 1 251   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 137 223
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 108 1 Times tool wins 148 212


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 117 0 242   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 255 104
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 117 2 Times tool wins 264 95


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