fond
Model Checking Contest 2020
10th edition, Paris, France, June 23, 2020
enPAC compared to other tools («All» models, LTLCardinality)
Last Updated
Jun 28, 2020

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 GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for enPAC and 1229 for GreatSPN, so there are 1229 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 635 84 49   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = GreatSPN 14 Times tool wins 671 442
enPAC > GreatSPN 169   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < GreatSPN 162 Times tool wins 775 338
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 106 179 34  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 26 504 34


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 ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for enPAC and 1229 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1229 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 29 184 92   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = ITS-Tools 46 Times tool wins 328 885
enPAC > ITS-Tools 565   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < ITS-Tools 297 Times tool wins 698 515
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 140 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 44 29 16


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-LoLa

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for enPAC and 1229 for ITS-LoLa, so there are 1229 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-LoLa are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  enPAC ITS-LoLa Both tools   enPAC ITS-LoLa
All computed OK 34 183 104   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = ITS-LoLa 72 Times tool wins 326 886
enPAC > ITS-LoLa 97   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < ITS-LoLa 722 Times tool wins 994 218
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 139 6 1  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 44 28 16


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

memory chart time chart

enPAC versus 2019-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for enPAC and 1229 for 2019-Gold, so there are 1229 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing enPAC to 2019-Gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  enPAC 2019-Gold Both tools   enPAC 2019-Gold
All computed OK 56 161 106   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = 2019-Gold 77 Times tool wins 370 820
enPAC > 2019-Gold 90   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < 2019-Gold 700 Times tool wins 559 631
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 139 3 1  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 26 57 34


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 2019-Gold, denote cases where enPAC computed less values than 2019-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, 2019-Gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart