fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2017
7th edition, Zaragoza, Spain, June 27, 2017
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («Known» models, CTLCardinality)
Last Updated
June 27, 2017

Introduction

This page presents how LoLA do cope efficiently with the CTLCardinality 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 LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for LoLA and 433 for LTSMin, so there are 433 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 111 3 310   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 120 0 Times tool wins 295 129
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 0 0 Times tool wins 372 52


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

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for LoLA and 433 for Tapaal, so there are 433 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 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLA Tapaal Both tools   LoLA Tapaal
Computed OK 111 3 310   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 120 0 Times tool wins 287 137
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 0 0 Times tool wins 346 78


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 ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for LoLA and 433 for ITS-Tools, so there are 433 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 309 1 112   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 366 56
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 311 9 Times tool wins 372 50


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 866 runs (433 for LoLA and 433 for MARCIE, so there are 433 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 255 2 166   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 367 56
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 256 9 Times tool wins 367 56


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 GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for LoLA and 433 for GreatSPN, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LoLA GreatSPN Both tools   LoLA GreatSPN
Computed OK 327 1 94   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 351 71
Error detected 3 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 327 9 Times tool wins 367 55


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