Introduction
This page presents how LoLA do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» 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 GreatSPN
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for LoLA and 1678 for GreatSPN, so there are 1678 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 executions | ||||||
| LoLA | GreatSPN | Both tools | LoLA | GreatSPN | ||
| All computed OK | 663 | 33 | 467 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LoLA = GreatSPN | — | — | 9 | Times tool wins | 1372 | 229 |
| LoLA > GreatSPN | — | — | 377 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LoLA < GreatSPN | — | — | 52 | Times tool wins | 1399 | 202 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 10 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 25 | 665 | 75 | |||
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 GreatSPN,
denote cases where LoLA
computed less values than GreatSPN,
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, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.
LoLA versus ITS-Tools
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for LoLA and 1678 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1678 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 | 5 | 108 | 1098 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LoLA = ITS-Tools | — | — | 47 | Times tool wins | 860 | 816 |
| LoLA > ITS-Tools | — | — | 86 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LoLA < ITS-Tools | — | — | 332 | Times tool wins | 909 | 767 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 10 | 2 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 98 | 3 | 2 | |||
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.
LoLA versus smpt
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for LoLA and 1678 for smpt, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA to smpt are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| LoLA | smpt | Both tools | LoLA | smpt | ||
| All computed OK | 5 | 105 | 990 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LoLA = smpt | — | — | 56 | Times tool wins | 638 | 1035 |
| LoLA > smpt | — | — | 221 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LoLA < smpt | — | — | 296 | Times tool wins | 918 | 755 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 10 | 1 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 96 | 5 | 4 | |||
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 smpt,
denote cases where LoLA
computed less values than smpt,
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, smpt wins when points are above the diagonal.
LoLA versus Tapaal
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for LoLA and 1678 for Tapaal, so there are 1678 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 executions | ||||||
| LoLA | Tapaal | Both tools | LoLA | Tapaal | ||
| All computed OK | 0 | 110 | 1127 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LoLA = Tapaal | — | — | 49 | Times tool wins | 377 | 1301 |
| LoLA > Tapaal | — | — | 34 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LoLA < Tapaal | — | — | 358 | Times tool wins | 765 | 913 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 10 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 100 | 0 | 0 | |||
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 Tapaal,
denote cases where LoLA
computed less values than Tapaal,
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, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.
LoLA versus LoLa+red
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for LoLA and 1678 for LoLa+red, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA to LoLa+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| LoLA | LoLa+red | Both tools | LoLA | LoLa+red | ||
| All computed OK | 0 | 108 | 1145 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LoLA = LoLa+red | — | — | 51 | Times tool wins | 955 | 721 |
| LoLA > LoLa+red | — | — | 6 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LoLA < LoLa+red | — | — | 366 | Times tool wins | 1137 | 539 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 10 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 98 | 0 | 2 | |||
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 LoLa+red,
denote cases where LoLA
computed less values than LoLa+red,
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, LoLa+red wins when points are above the diagonal.
LoLA versus LTSMin+red
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for LoLA and 1678 for LTSMin+red, so there are 1678 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+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| LoLA | LTSMin+red | Both tools | LoLA | LTSMin+red | ||
| All computed OK | 3 | 108 | 1071 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LoLA = LTSMin+red | — | — | 48 | Times tool wins | 943 | 733 |
| LoLA > LTSMin+red | — | — | 137 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LoLA < LTSMin+red | — | — | 309 | Times tool wins | 1120 | 556 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 10 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 98 | 3 | 2 | |||
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 LTSMin+red,
denote cases where LoLA
computed less values than LTSMin+red,
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, LTSMin+red wins when points are above the diagonal.
LoLA versus Marcie+red
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for LoLA and 1678 for Marcie+red, so there are 1678 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+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| LoLA | Marcie+red | Both tools | LoLA | Marcie+red | ||
| All computed OK | 3 | 109 | 1071 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LoLA = Marcie+red | — | — | 43 | Times tool wins | 1307 | 370 |
| LoLA > Marcie+red | — | — | 138 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LoLA < Marcie+red | — | — | 313 | Times tool wins | 1270 | 407 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 10 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 99 | 3 | 1 | |||
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 Marcie+red,
denote cases where LoLA
computed less values than Marcie+red,
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, Marcie+red wins when points are above the diagonal.
LoLA versus Smart+red
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for LoLA and 1678 for Smart+red, so there are 1678 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+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| LoLA | Smart+red | Both tools | LoLA | Smart+red | ||
| All computed OK | 9 | 106 | 1074 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LoLA = Smart+red | — | — | 46 | Times tool wins | 1125 | 544 |
| LoLA > Smart+red | — | — | 132 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LoLA < Smart+red | — | — | 302 | Times tool wins | 1188 | 481 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 10 | 9 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 98 | 2 | 2 | |||
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 Smart+red,
denote cases where LoLA
computed less values than Smart+red,
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, Smart+red wins when points are above the diagonal.
LoLA versus 2022-gold
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for LoLA and 1678 for 2022-gold, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA to 2022-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| LoLA | 2022-gold | Both tools | LoLA | 2022-gold | ||
| All computed OK | 0 | 110 | 1110 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LoLA = 2022-gold | — | — | 54 | Times tool wins | 463 | 1215 |
| LoLA > 2022-gold | — | — | 74 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LoLA < 2022-gold | — | — | 330 | Times tool wins | 797 | 881 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 10 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 100 | 0 | 0 | |||
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 2022-gold,
denote cases where LoLA
computed less values than 2022-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, 2022-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.
LoLA versus BVT-2023
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for LoLA and 1678 for BVT-2023, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA to BVT-2023 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
Important: here, LoLA is compared to BVT-2023. It is a good way to check how LoLA compete in terms of resource consomption with the best tools (even virtual). When LoLA is best, the corresponding plots are on the diagonal of the scatter plots chart.
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| LoLA | BVT-2023 | Both tools | LoLA | BVT-2023 | ||
| All computed OK | 0 | 110 | 1147 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LoLA = BVT-2023 | — | — | 19 | Times tool wins | 0 | 1678 |
| LoLA > BVT-2023 | — | — | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LoLA < BVT-2023 | — | — | 402 | Times tool wins | 0 | 1678 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 10 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 100 | 0 | 0 | |||
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 BVT-2023,
denote cases where LoLA
computed less values than BVT-2023,
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, BVT-2023 wins when points are above the diagonal.
LoLA versus LTSMin
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for LoLA and 1678 for LTSMin, so there are 1678 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 executions | ||||||
| LoLA | LTSMin | Both tools | LoLA | LTSMin | ||
| All computed OK | 758 | 27 | 591 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LoLA = LTSMin | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 1147 | 448 |
| LoLA > LTSMin | — | — | 133 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LoLA < LTSMin | — | — | 86 | Times tool wins | 1326 | 269 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 11 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 10 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 23 | 753 | 77 | |||
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 LTSMin,
denote cases where LoLA
computed less values than LTSMin,
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, LTSMin wins when points are above the diagonal.
LoLA versus Marcie
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for LoLA and 1678 for Marcie, so there are 1678 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 executions | ||||||
| LoLA | Marcie | Both tools | LoLA | Marcie | ||
| All computed OK | 909 | 11 | 405 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LoLA = Marcie | — | — | 4 | Times tool wins | 1508 | 71 |
| LoLA > Marcie | — | — | 203 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LoLA < Marcie | — | — | 47 | Times tool wins | 1487 | 92 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 10 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 5 | 913 | 95 | |||
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 Marcie,
denote cases where LoLA
computed less values than Marcie,
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, Marcie wins when points are above the diagonal.
LoLA versus Smart
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for LoLA and 1678 for Smart, so there are 1678 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 executions | ||||||
| LoLA | Smart | Both tools | LoLA | Smart | ||
| All computed OK | 972 | 16 | 438 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LoLA = Smart | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 1396 | 147 |
| LoLA > Smart | — | — | 78 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LoLA < Smart | — | — | 39 | Times tool wins | 1465 | 78 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 10 | 5 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 9 | 970 | 91 | |||
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 Smart,
denote cases where LoLA
computed less values than Smart,
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, Smart wins when points are above the diagonal.
