fond
Model Checking Contest 2021
11th edition, Paris, France, June 23, 2021
LoLA compared to other tools (��All�� models, CTLFireability)
Last Updated
Jun 28, 2021

Introduction

This page presents how LoLA do cope efficiently with the CTLFireability 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 2458 runs (1229 for LoLA and 1229 for GreatSPN, so there are 1229 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 339 130 132   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = GreatSPN 11 Times tool wins 649 335
LoLA > GreatSPN 188   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < GreatSPN 184 Times tool wins 687 297
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 199 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 36 443 140


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 2458 runs (1229 for LoLA and 1229 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1229 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 194 250 133   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = ITS-Tools 10 Times tool wins 614 490
LoLA > ITS-Tools 326   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < ITS-Tools 191 Times tool wins 703 401
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 199 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 106 247 70


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 Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for LoLA and 1229 for Tapaal, so there are 1229 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 27 365 125   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = Tapaal 124 Times tool wins 720 499
LoLA > Tapaal 245   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < Tapaal 333 Times tool wins 781 438
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 199 4 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 169 26 7


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 2020-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for LoLA and 1229 for 2020-gold, so there are 1229 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LoLA to 2020-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LoLA 2020-gold Both tools   LoLA 2020-gold
All computed OK 55 301 118   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = 2020-gold 124 Times tool wins 803 352
LoLA > 2020-gold 301   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < 2020-gold 256 Times tool wins 787 368
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 191 5 8  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 145 85 31


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 2020-gold, denote cases where LoLA computed less values than 2020-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, 2020-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LoLA versus BVT-2021

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for LoLA and 1229 for BVT-2021, so there are 1229 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-2021 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, LoLA is compared to BVT-2021. 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-2021 Both tools   LoLA BVT-2021
All computed OK 0 357 146   Smallest Memory Footprint
LoLA = BVT-2021 80 Times tool wins 0 1211
LoLA > BVT-2021 0   Shortest Execution Time
LoLA < BVT-2021 628 Times tool wins 0 1211
Do not compete 0 6 0
Error detected 193 6 6  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 176 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-2021, denote cases where LoLA computed less values than BVT-2021, 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-2021 wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart