Introduction

This page presents how LoLA do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability 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+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for LoLA and 1782 for GreatSPN+red, so there are 1782 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+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

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

LoLA versus LTSMin+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for LoLA and 1782 for LTSMin+red, so there are 1782 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).

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 ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for LoLA and 1782 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1782 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).

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 3564 runs (1782 for LoLA and 1782 for smpt, so there are 1782 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).

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 3564 runs (1782 for LoLA and 1782 for Tapaal, so there are 1782 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).

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 SVSKit

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for LoLA and 1782 for SVSKit, so there are 1782 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA to SVSKit are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

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 SVSKit, denote cases where LoLA computed less values than SVSKit, 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, SVSKit wins when points are above the diagonal.

LoLA versus 2023-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for LoLA and 1782 for 2023-gold, so there are 1782 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA to 2023-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

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 2023-gold, denote cases where LoLA computed less values than 2023-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, 2023-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

LoLA versus BVT-2024

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for LoLA and 1782 for BVT-2024, so there are 1782 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-2024 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, LoLA is compared to BVT-2024. 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.

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-2024, denote cases where LoLA computed less values than BVT-2024, 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-2024 wins when points are above the diagonal.

LoLA versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3564 runs (1782 for LoLA and 1782 for GreatSPN, so there are 1782 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).

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.