Model Checking Contest 2021
11th edition, Paris, France, June 23, 2021
enPAC compared to other tools (��Surprise�� models, LTLCardinality)
Last Updated
Jun 28, 2021

# Introduction

This page presents how enPAC do cope efficiently with the LTLCardinality 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 364 runs (182 for enPAC and 182 for GreatSPN, so there are 182 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 91 14 27 Smallest Memory Footprint enPAC = GreatSPN — — 1 Times tool wins 122 48 enPAC > GreatSPN — — 10 Shortest Execution Time enPAC < GreatSPN — — 27 Times tool wins 118 52 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 16 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 78 9

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.

# enPAC versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 364 runs (182 for enPAC and 182 for ITS-Tools, so there are 182 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 9 41 Smallest Memory Footprint enPAC = ITS-Tools — — 7 Times tool wins 70 95 enPAC > ITS-Tools — — 18 Shortest Execution Time enPAC < ITS-Tools — — 90 Times tool wins 94 71 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 0 17

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.

# enPAC versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 364 runs (182 for enPAC and 182 for LoLA, so there are 182 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 3 9 33 Smallest Memory Footprint enPAC = LoLA — — 27 Times tool wins 66 99 enPAC > LoLA — — 51 Shortest Execution Time enPAC < LoLA — — 42 Times tool wins 83 82 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 3 17

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.

# enPAC versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 364 runs (182 for enPAC and 182 for Tapaal, so there are 182 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 9 47 Smallest Memory Footprint enPAC = Tapaal — — 4 Times tool wins 34 131 enPAC > Tapaal — — 1 Shortest Execution Time enPAC < Tapaal — — 104 Times tool wins 58 107 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 0 17

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.

# enPAC versus 2020-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 364 runs (182 for enPAC and 182 for 2020-gold, so there are 182 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing enPAC to 2020-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

 Statistics on the executions enPAC 2020-gold Both tools enPAC 2020-gold All computed OK 14 12 34 Smallest Memory Footprint enPAC = 2020-gold — — 4 Times tool wins 123 45 enPAC > 2020-gold — — 64 Shortest Execution Time enPAC < 2020-gold — — 40 Times tool wins 137 31 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 28 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 26 0 0

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 2020-gold, denote cases where enPAC computed less values than 2020-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, 2020-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

# enPAC versus BVT-2021

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 364 runs (182 for enPAC and 182 for BVT-2021, so there are 182 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing enPAC to BVT-2021 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, enPAC is compared to BVT-2021. It is a good way to check how enPAC compete in terms of resource consomption with the best tools (even virtual). When enPAC is best, the corresponding plots are on the diagonal of the scatter plots chart.

 Statistics on the executions enPAC BVT-2021 Both tools enPAC BVT-2021 All computed OK 1 25 47 Smallest Memory Footprint enPAC = BVT-2021 — — 1 Times tool wins 1 180 enPAC > BVT-2021 — — 0 Shortest Execution Time enPAC < BVT-2021 — — 107 Times tool wins 1 180 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 2 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 26 0 0

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 BVT-2021, denote cases where enPAC computed less values than BVT-2021, 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, BVT-2021 wins when points are above the diagonal.