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

Introduction

This page presents how LoLa do cope efficiently with the LTLCardinality examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Surprise» 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 278 runs (139 for LoLa and 139 for ITS-Tools, so there are 139 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 88 3 39   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 9 0 0 Times tool wins 117 13
Error detected 2 8 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 88 1 Times tool wins 117 13


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 278 runs (139 for LoLa and 139 for LTSMin, so there are 139 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 1 3 126   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 76 54
Error detected 2 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 0 0 Times tool wins 40 90


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 278 runs (139 for LoLa and 139 for PeCan, so there are 139 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 59 3 68   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 90 40
Error detected 2 17 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 42 0 Times tool wins 96 34


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