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

This page presents how LoLA do cope efficiently with the Liveness 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 30 minutes 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 632 21 451 Smallest Memory Footprint LoLA = GreatSPN — — 0 Times tool wins 1017 87 LoLA > GreatSPN — — 0 Shortest Execution Time LoLA < GreatSPN — — 0 Times tool wins 1071 33 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 1 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 21 631 125

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 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 30 minutes 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 34 77 1049 Smallest Memory Footprint LoLA = ITS-Tools — — 0 Times tool wins 1032 128 LoLA > ITS-Tools — — 0 Shortest Execution Time LoLA < ITS-Tools — — 0 Times tool wins 1062 98 Do not compete 0 12 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 84 29 62

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 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 30 minutes 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 219 7 864 Smallest Memory Footprint LoLA = Tapaal — — 0 Times tool wins 887 203 LoLA > Tapaal — — 0 Shortest Execution Time LoLA < Tapaal — — 0 Times tool wins 1045 45 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 1 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 218 139

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 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 30 minutes 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 303 7 780 Smallest Memory Footprint LoLA = 2020-gold — — 0 Times tool wins 923 167 LoLA > 2020-gold — — 0 Shortest Execution Time LoLA < 2020-gold — — 0 Times tool wins 1057 33 Do not compete 0 72 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 231 139

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.

# 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 30 minutes 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 79 1083 Smallest Memory Footprint LoLA = BVT-2021 — — 0 Times tool wins 0 1162 LoLA > BVT-2021 — — 0 Shortest Execution Time LoLA < BVT-2021 — — 0 Times tool wins 0 1162 Do not compete 0 67 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 146 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.