fond
Model Checking Contest 2019
9th edition, Prague, Czech Republic, April 7, 2019 (TOOLympics)
LoLA compared to other tools («Known» models, LTLFireability)
Last Updated
Apr 15, 2019

Introduction

This page presents how LoLA do cope efficiently with the LTLFireability examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Known» models.

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in terms of 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 while others 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 1938 runs (969 for LoLA and 969 for ITS-Tools, so there are 969 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 executions
  LoLA ITS-Tools Both tools   LoLA ITS-Tools
All computed OK 151 0 477   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = ITS-Tools 30 Times tool wins 427 507
LoLA > ITS-Tools 217   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < ITS-Tools 59 Times tool wins 766 168
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 152 34


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LoLA computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where LoLA computed less values than ITS-Tools, 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LoLA versus ITS-Tools.M

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for LoLA and 969 for ITS-Tools.M, so there are 969 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.M are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LoLA ITS-Tools.M Both tools   LoLA ITS-Tools.M
All computed OK 220 0 456   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = ITS-Tools.M 25 Times tool wins 430 500
LoLA > ITS-Tools.M 169   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < ITS-Tools.M 60 Times tool wins 808 122
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 221 32


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LoLA computed more values than ITS-Tools.M, denote cases where LoLA computed less values than ITS-Tools.M, 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools.M wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LoLA versus enPAC

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for LoLA and 969 for enPAC, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA to enPAC are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LoLA enPAC Both tools   LoLA enPAC
All computed OK 881 0 39   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = enPAC 2 Times tool wins 895 39
LoLA > enPAC 9   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < enPAC 3 Times tool wins 916 18
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 1 37 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 29 694 5


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LoLA computed more values than enPAC, denote cases where LoLA computed less values than enPAC, 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, enPAC wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LoLA versus 2018-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for LoLA and 969 for 2018-Gold, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA to 2018-Gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LoLA 2018-Gold Both tools   LoLA 2018-Gold
All computed OK 10 10 599   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = 2018-Gold 116 Times tool wins 114 830
LoLA > 2018-Gold 122   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < 2018-Gold 87 Times tool wins 234 710
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 10 25


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where LoLA computed more values than 2018-Gold, denote cases where LoLA computed less values than 2018-Gold, 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, 2018-Gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart