fond
Model Checking Contest 2023
13th edition, Paris, France, April 26, 2023 (at TOOLympics II)
LoLA compared to other tools («Surprise» models, ReachabilityCardinality)
Last Updated
May 14, 2023

Introduction

This page presents how LoLA do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Surprise» 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 122 runs (61 for LoLA and 61 for GreatSPN, so there are 61 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 23 0 14   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 55 5
LoLA > GreatSPN 20   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < GreatSPN 2 Times tool wins 53 7
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 24 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 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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLA and 61 for ITS-Tools, so there are 61 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 0 1 39   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = ITS-Tools 5 Times tool wins 37 24
LoLA > ITS-Tools 4   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < ITS-Tools 12 Times tool wins 35 26
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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 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 smpt

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLA and 61 for smpt, so there are 61 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 0 1 27   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = smpt 5 Times tool wins 36 25
LoLA > smpt 21   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < smpt 7 Times tool wins 39 22
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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 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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLA and 61 for Tapaal, so there are 61 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 1 38   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = Tapaal 3 Times tool wins 31 30
LoLA > Tapaal 3   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < Tapaal 16 Times tool wins 34 27
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA versus LoLa+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLA and 61 for LoLa+red, so there are 61 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 1 41   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = LoLa+red 7 Times tool wins 38 23
LoLA > LoLa+red 1   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < LoLa+red 11 Times tool wins 37 24
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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 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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA versus LTSMin+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLA and 61 for LTSMin+red, so there are 61 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 0 1 36   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = LTSMin+red 7 Times tool wins 43 18
LoLA > LTSMin+red 7   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < LTSMin+red 10 Times tool wins 40 21
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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 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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA versus Marcie+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLA and 61 for Marcie+red, so there are 61 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 0 1 34   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 47 14
LoLA > Marcie+red 9   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < Marcie+red 17 Times tool wins 41 20
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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 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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA versus Smart+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLA and 61 for Smart+red, so there are 61 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 0 1 38   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = Smart+red 2 Times tool wins 43 14
LoLA > Smart+red 4   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < Smart+red 12 Times tool wins 40 17
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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 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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA versus 2022-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLA and 61 for 2022-gold, so there are 61 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 1 37   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = 2022-gold 3 Times tool wins 31 30
LoLA > 2022-gold 5   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < 2022-gold 15 Times tool wins 34 27
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA versus BVT-2023

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLA and 61 for BVT-2023, so there are 61 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 1 41   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 61
LoLA > BVT-2023 0   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < BVT-2023 19 Times tool wins 0 61
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLA and 61 for LTSMin, so there are 61 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 22 0 15   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 55 5
LoLA > LTSMin 20   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < LTSMin 3 Times tool wins 53 7
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 23 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 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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLA and 61 for Marcie, so there are 61 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 20 0 12   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = Marcie 0 Times tool wins 49 11
LoLA > Marcie 24   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < Marcie 4 Times tool wins 51 9
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 21 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 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.

memory chart time chart

LoLA versus Smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLA and 61 for Smart, so there are 61 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 37 0 12   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = Smart 0 Times tool wins 53 2
LoLA > Smart 6   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < Smart 0 Times tool wins 55 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 38 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 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.

memory chart time chart