fond
Model Checking Contest 2019
9th edition, Prague, Czech Republic, April 7, 2019 (TOOLympics)
enPAC compared to other tools (��All�� models, CTLCardinality)
Last Updated
Apr 15, 2019

Introduction

This page presents how enPAC do cope efficiently with the CTLCardinality 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 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 2036 runs (1018 for enPAC and 1018 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1018 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 0 438 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 0 438
enPAC > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 0 438
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 438 0 580


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 2036 runs (1018 for enPAC and 1018 for ITS-Tools.M, so there are 1018 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 0 465 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 0 465
enPAC > ITS-Tools.M 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 0 465
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 466 0 551


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 LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for enPAC and 1018 for LoLA, so there are 1018 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing enPAC to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  enPAC LoLA Both tools   enPAC LoLA
All computed OK 0 965 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 0 965
enPAC > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 0 965
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 3 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 968 0 50


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

memory chart time chart

enPAC versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for enPAC and 1018 for Tapaal, so there are 1018 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 0 994 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 0 994
enPAC > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 0 994
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 995 0 23


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 2036 runs (1018 for enPAC and 1018 for GreatSPN, so there are 1018 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 0 342 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 0 342
enPAC > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 0 342
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 342 0 676


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 2018-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for enPAC and 1018 for 2018-Gold, so there are 1018 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 0 994 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = 2018-Gold 0 Times tool wins 0 994
enPAC > 2018-Gold 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < 2018-Gold 0 Times tool wins 0 994
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 995 0 23


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