fond
Model Checking Contest 2019
9th edition, Prague, Czech Republic, April 7, 2019 (TOOLympics)
enPAC compared to other tools («Known» models, StateSpace)
Last Updated
Apr 15, 2019

Introduction

This page presents how enPAC do cope efficiently with the StateSpace examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Known» 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 enPAC' 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).

enPAC versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for enPAC and 969 for ITS-Tools, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing enPAC to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  enPAC ITS-Tools Both tools   enPAC ITS-Tools
All computed OK 5 438 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 40 466
enPAC > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < ITS-Tools 63 Times tool wins 40 466
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 22 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 349 118 350


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 enPAC computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where enPAC 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.

enPAC wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

enPAC versus ITS-Tools.M

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for enPAC and 969 for ITS-Tools.M, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing enPAC to ITS-Tools.M are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  enPAC ITS-Tools.M Both tools   enPAC ITS-Tools.M
All computed OK 6 388 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 40 416
enPAC > ITS-Tools.M 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < ITS-Tools.M 62 Times tool wins 40 416
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 22 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 305 125 394


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 enPAC computed more values than ITS-Tools.M, denote cases where enPAC computed less values than ITS-Tools.M, 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.

enPAC wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools.M wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

enPAC versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for enPAC and 969 for LTSMin, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing enPAC to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  enPAC LTSMin Both tools   enPAC LTSMin
All computed OK 5 298 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 26 340
enPAC > LTSMin 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < LTSMin 63 Times tool wins 29 337
Do not compete 0 0 180
Error detected 22 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 282 11 417


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 enPAC computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where enPAC computed less values than LTSMin, 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.

enPAC wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

enPAC versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for enPAC and 969 for Tapaal, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing enPAC to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  enPAC Tapaal Both tools   enPAC Tapaal
All computed OK 4 154 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 23 199
enPAC > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < Tapaal 64 Times tool wins 20 202
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 22 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 96 148 603


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 enPAC computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where enPAC 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.

enPAC wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

enPAC versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for enPAC and 969 for GreatSPN, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing enPAC to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  enPAC GreatSPN Both tools   enPAC GreatSPN
All computed OK 4 526 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 29 565
enPAC > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < GreatSPN 64 Times tool wins 22 572
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 22 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 427 107 272


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 enPAC computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where enPAC 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.

enPAC wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

enPAC versus smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for enPAC and 969 for smart, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing enPAC to smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  enPAC smart Both tools   enPAC smart
All computed OK 4 236 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = smart 1 Times tool wins 38 266
enPAC > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < smart 63 Times tool wins 41 263
Do not compete 0 0 180
Error detected 22 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 221 11 478


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 enPAC computed more values than smart, denote cases where enPAC 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.

enPAC wins when points are below the diagonal, smart wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

enPAC versus TINA.tedd

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for enPAC and 969 for TINA.tedd, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing enPAC to TINA.tedd are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  enPAC TINA.tedd Both tools   enPAC TINA.tedd
All computed OK 3 589 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = TINA.tedd 1 Times tool wins 53 604
enPAC > TINA.tedd 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < TINA.tedd 64 Times tool wins 36 621
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 22 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 475 91 224


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 enPAC computed more values than TINA.tedd, denote cases where enPAC computed less values than TINA.tedd, 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.

enPAC wins when points are below the diagonal, TINA.tedd wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

enPAC versus 2018-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for enPAC and 969 for 2018-Gold, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing enPAC to 2018-Gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  enPAC 2018-Gold Both tools   enPAC 2018-Gold
All computed OK 5 492 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = 2018-Gold 0 Times tool wins 25 533
enPAC > 2018-Gold 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < 2018-Gold 61 Times tool wins 21 537
Do not compete 170 0 0
Error detected 22 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 395 100 265


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 enPAC computed more values than 2018-Gold, denote cases where enPAC computed less values than 2018-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.

enPAC wins when points are below the diagonal, 2018-Gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart