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

Introduction

This page presents how enPAC do cope efficiently with the LTLFireability examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Surprise» 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 422 runs (211 for enPAC and 211 for GreatSPN, so there are 211 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 96 13 15   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = GreatSPN 3 Times tool wins 96 87
enPAC > GreatSPN 35   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < GreatSPN 21 Times tool wins 133 50
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 11 35 5  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 65 19


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 422 runs (211 for enPAC and 211 for ITS-Tools, so there are 211 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 39 29   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 41 168
enPAC > ITS-Tools 110   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < ITS-Tools 30 Times tool wins 128 81
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 16 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 23 1 2


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 422 runs (211 for enPAC and 211 for ITS-LoLa, so there are 211 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 2 39 31   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = ITS-LoLa 20 Times tool wins 34 175
enPAC > ITS-LoLa 49   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < ITS-LoLa 68 Times tool wins 170 39
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 16 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 23 0 2


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 422 runs (211 for enPAC and 211 for 2019-Gold, so there are 211 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 0 21 30   Smallest Memory Footprint
enPAC = 2019-Gold 28 Times tool wins 56 135
enPAC > 2019-Gold 32   Shortest Execution Time
enPAC < 2019-Gold 80 Times tool wins 116 75
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 16 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 5 0 20


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