Question regarding different modes of wpa

[lzyxdu]

Hi all,
I'm using wpa to generate the call graph (a sound one without missing any valid edges) of a shared library, I've seen a number of analysis mode the source code below:

clEnumValN(PointerAnalysis::Andersen_WPA, "nander", "Standard inclusion-based analysis"),
clEnumValN(PointerAnalysis::AndersenLCD_WPA, "lander", "Lazy cycle detection inclusion-based analysis"),
clEnumValN(PointerAnalysis::AndersenHCD_WPA, "hander", "Hybrid cycle detection inclusion-based analysis"),
clEnumValN(PointerAnalysis::AndersenHLCD_WPA, "hlander", "Hybrid lazy cycle detection inclusion-based analysis"),
clEnumValN(PointerAnalysis::AndersenSCD_WPA, "sander", "Selective cycle detection inclusion-based analysis"),
clEnumValN(PointerAnalysis::AndersenSFR_WPA, "sfrander", "Stride-based field representation includion-based analysis"),
clEnumValN(PointerAnalysis::AndersenWaveDiff_WPA, "wander", "Wave propagation inclusion-based analysis"),
clEnumValN(PointerAnalysis::AndersenWaveDiff_WPA, "ander", "Diff wave propagation inclusion-based analysis"),
clEnumValN(PointerAnalysis::AndersenWaveDiffWithType_WPA, "andertype", "Diff wave propagation with type inclusion-based analysis"),
clEnumValN(PointerAnalysis::FSSPARSE_WPA, "fspta", "Sparse flow sensitive pointer analysis"),
clEnumValN(PointerAnalysis::TypeCPP_WPA, "type", "Type-based fast analysis for Callgraph, PAG and CHA")

I'm new to pointer analysis and my questions are:

• What are the differences among these modes？
• I guess this involves a trade-off between efficiency and accuracy. If so, which mode is the most efficient? Which mode is the most accurate?

By the way, I'm using SVF-1.9 if it helps.
Thanks in advance!
Ziyi