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

Introduction

This page presents how LoLa+red do cope efficiently with the QuasiLiveness 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+red' 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+red versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLa+red and 61 for GreatSPN, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLa+red to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LoLa+red GreatSPN Both tools   LoLa+red GreatSPN
All computed OK 17 0 36   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLa+red = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 33 20
LoLa+red > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
LoLa+red < GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 35 18
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 17 8


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+red computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where LoLa+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LoLa+red versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLa+red and 61 for ITS-Tools, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLa+red to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LoLa+red ITS-Tools Both tools   LoLa+red ITS-Tools
All computed OK 0 0 53   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLa+red = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 35 18
LoLa+red > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
LoLa+red < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 31 22
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 0 8


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+red computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where LoLa+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LoLa+red versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLa+red and 61 for Tapaal, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLa+red to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LoLa+red Tapaal Both tools   LoLa+red Tapaal
All computed OK 14 0 39   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLa+red = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 17 36
LoLa+red > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
LoLa+red < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 24 29
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 14 8


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+red computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where LoLa+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LoLa+red versus LTSMin+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLa+red and 61 for LTSMin+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLa+red to LTSMin+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LoLa+red LTSMin+red Both tools   LoLa+red LTSMin+red
All computed OK 1 0 52   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLa+red = LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 28 25
LoLa+red > LTSMin+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
LoLa+red < LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 33 20
Do not compete 0 4 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 0 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+red computed more values than LTSMin+red, denote cases where LoLa+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LoLa+red versus Marcie+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLa+red and 61 for Marcie+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLa+red to Marcie+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LoLa+red Marcie+red Both tools   LoLa+red Marcie+red
All computed OK 1 0 52   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLa+red = Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 22 31
LoLa+red > Marcie+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
LoLa+red < Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 25 28
Do not compete 0 3 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 0 6


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+red computed more values than Marcie+red, denote cases where LoLa+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, Marcie+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LoLa+red versus Smart+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLa+red and 61 for Smart+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLa+red to Smart+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LoLa+red Smart+red Both tools   LoLa+red Smart+red
All computed OK 0 0 53   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLa+red = Smart+red 0 Times tool wins 29 24
LoLa+red > Smart+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
LoLa+red < Smart+red 0 Times tool wins 30 23
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 0 8


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+red computed more values than Smart+red, denote cases where LoLa+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, Smart+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LoLa+red versus 2022-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLa+red and 61 for 2022-gold, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLa+red to 2022-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LoLa+red 2022-gold Both tools   LoLa+red 2022-gold
All computed OK 22 0 31   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLa+red = 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 22 31
LoLa+red > 2022-gold 0   Shortest Execution Time
LoLa+red < 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 22 31
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 22 8


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+red computed more values than 2022-gold, denote cases where LoLa+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, 2022-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LoLa+red versus BVT-2023

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLa+red and 61 for BVT-2023, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLa+red to BVT-2023 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, LoLa+red is compared to BVT-2023. It is a good way to check how LoLa+red compete in terms of resource consomption with the best tools (even virtual). When LoLa+red is best, the corresponding plots are on the diagonal of the scatter plots chart.

Statistics on the executions
  LoLa+red BVT-2023 Both tools   LoLa+red BVT-2023
All computed OK 0 0 53   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLa+red = BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 53
LoLa+red > BVT-2023 0   Shortest Execution Time
LoLa+red < BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 53
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 8 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+red computed more values than BVT-2023, denote cases where LoLa+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, BVT-2023 wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LoLa+red versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLa+red and 61 for LoLA, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLa+red to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LoLa+red LoLA Both tools   LoLa+red LoLA
All computed OK 12 0 41   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLa+red = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 18 35
LoLa+red > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
LoLa+red < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 13 40
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 12 8


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+red computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where LoLa+red computed less values than LoLA, 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LoLa+red versus Smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LoLa+red and 61 for Smart, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLa+red to Smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LoLa+red Smart Both tools   LoLa+red Smart
All computed OK 49 0 4   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLa+red = Smart 0 Times tool wins 51 2
LoLa+red > Smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
LoLa+red < Smart 0 Times tool wins 52 1
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 49 8


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+red computed more values than Smart, denote cases where LoLa+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, Smart wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart