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

Introduction

This page presents how enPAC do cope efficiently with the LTLCardinality 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 1 811 24   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 12 827
enPAC > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < ITS-Tools 3 Times tool wins 13 826
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 62 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 624 68 111


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 1 712 24   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 12 728
enPAC > ITS-Tools.M 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < ITS-Tools.M 3 Times tool wins 13 727
Do not compete 192 0 0
Error detected 62 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 545 87 186


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 0 944 24   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = LoLA 1 Times tool wins 23 949
enPAC > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < LoLA 3 Times tool wins 11 961
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 61 0 1  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 728 38 7


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 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 1 940 23   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = 2018-Gold 0 Times tool wins 8 960
enPAC > 2018-Gold 1   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < 2018-Gold 3 Times tool wins 5 963
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 61 2 1  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 731 44 4


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