Introduction
This page presents how LoLA do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityDeadlock examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» 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 2038 runs (1019 for LoLA and 1019 for LTSMin, so there are 1019 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 | 537 | 31 | 369 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| Do not compete | 0 | 256 | 0 | Times tool wins | 871 | 66 |
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 69 | 319 | 44 | Times tool wins | 879 | 58 |
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.
LoLA versus Tapaal
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for LoLA and 1019 for Tapaal, so there are 1019 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 | 316 | 13 | 590 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| Do not compete | 0 | 256 | 0 | Times tool wins | 629 | 290 |
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 51 | 98 | 62 | Times tool wins | 824 | 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.
LoLA versus ITS-Tools
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for LoLA and 1019 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1019 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 | 432 | 46 | 474 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | Times tool wins | 884 | 68 |
| Error detected | 0 | 10 | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 46 | 422 | 67 | Times tool wins | 870 | 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.
LoLA versus MARCIE
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for LoLA and 1019 for MARCIE, so there are 1019 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 | 567 | 39 | 339 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | Times tool wins | 883 | 62 |
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 39 | 567 | 74 | Times tool wins | 864 | 81 |
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.
LoLA versus GreatSPN
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for LoLA and 1019 for GreatSPN, so there are 1019 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 | 592 | 26 | 314 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | Times tool wins | 806 | 126 |
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 26 | 592 | 87 | Times tool wins | 841 | 91 |
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.
