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

Introduction

This page presents how enPAC do cope efficiently with the LTLFireability 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 1 764 42   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 22 796
enPAC > ITS-Tools 2   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < ITS-Tools 9 Times tool wins 23 795
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 37 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 611 78 123


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 1 678 43   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 22 710
enPAC > ITS-Tools.M 1   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < ITS-Tools.M 9 Times tool wins 23 709
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 37 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 544 97 184


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 0 918 40   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = LoLA 2 Times tool wins 40 932
enPAC > LoLA 3   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < LoLA 9 Times tool wins 18 954
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 37 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 727 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 1 922 36   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = 2018-Gold 1 Times tool wins 14 962
enPAC > 2018-Gold 7   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < 2018-Gold 9 Times tool wins 13 963
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 37 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 733 42 1


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