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

Introduction

This page presents how LoLA do cope efficiently with the StateSpace 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 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 0 115 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 313 10 110 Times tool wins 0 115
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 10 198 0 Times tool wins 0 115


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 0 72 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 313 10 110 Times tool wins 0 72
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 10 241 0 Times tool wins 0 72


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 0 164 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 423 0 0 Times tool wins 0 164
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 258 10 Times tool wins 0 164


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 0 172 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 423 0 0 Times tool wins 0 172
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 249 10 Times tool wins 0 172


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 0 204 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 423 0 0 Times tool wins 0 204
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 219 10 Times tool wins 0 204


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 smart

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

Statistics on the execution
  LoLA smart Both tools   LoLA smart
Computed OK 0 102 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 313 10 110 Times tool wins 0 102
Error detected 0 21 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 10 190 0 Times tool wins 0 102


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 TINA.tedd

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

Statistics on the execution
  LoLA TINA.tedd Both tools   LoLA TINA.tedd
Computed OK 0 182 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 423 0 0 Times tool wins 0 182
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 241 10 Times tool wins 0 182


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 TINA.sift

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

Statistics on the execution
  LoLA TINA.sift Both tools   LoLA TINA.sift
Computed OK 0 85 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 423 0 0 Times tool wins 0 85
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 336 10 Times tool wins 0 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