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

Introduction

This page presents how enPAC do cope efficiently with the GlobalProperties 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 0 773 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 0 773
enPAC > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 0 773
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 773 0 238


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 0 773 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 0 773
enPAC > ITS-Tools.M 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 0 773
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 773 0 243


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 0 744 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 0 744
enPAC > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 0 744
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 744 0 274


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 0 856 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 0 856
enPAC > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 0 856
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 856 0 162


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 0 441 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 0 441
enPAC > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 0 441
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 441 0 577


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


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