fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2017
7th edition, Zaragoza, Spain, June 27, 2017
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («Stripped» models, StateSpace)
Last Updated
June 27, 2017

Introduction

This page presents how TINA.tedd do cope efficiently with the StateSpace examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Stripped» models.

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in termsof both memory and execution time.The x-axis corresponds to the challenging tool where the y-axes represents TINA.tedd' performances. Thus, points below the diagonal of a chart denote comparisons favorables to the tool whileothers 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).

TINA.tedd versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for TINA.tedd and 433 for LTSMin, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TINA.tedd to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TINA.tedd LTSMin Both tools   TINA.tedd LTSMin
Computed OK 74 7 108   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 120 0 Times tool wins 138 51
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 96 43 155 Times tool wins 148 41


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, 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.

memory chart time chart

TINA.tedd versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for TINA.tedd and 433 for LoLA, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TINA.tedd to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TINA.tedd LoLA Both tools   TINA.tedd LoLA
Computed OK 182 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 423 0 Times tool wins 182 0
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 241 0 10 Times tool wins 182 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, 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.

memory chart time chart

TINA.tedd versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for TINA.tedd and 433 for Tapaal, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TINA.tedd to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TINA.tedd Tapaal Both tools   TINA.tedd Tapaal
Computed OK 115 5 67   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 120 0 Times tool wins 123 64
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 94 84 157 Times tool wins 135 52


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, 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.

memory chart time chart

TINA.tedd versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for TINA.tedd and 433 for ITS-Tools, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TINA.tedd to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TINA.tedd ITS-Tools Both tools   TINA.tedd ITS-Tools
Computed OK 31 13 151   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 34 161
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 13 30 238 Times tool wins 135 60


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, 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.

memory chart time chart

TINA.tedd versus MARCIE

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for TINA.tedd and 433 for MARCIE, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TINA.tedd to MARCIE are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TINA.tedd MARCIE Both tools   TINA.tedd MARCIE
Computed OK 23 13 159   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 126 69
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 13 21 238 Times tool wins 147 48


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, 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.

memory chart time chart

TINA.tedd versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for TINA.tedd and 433 for GreatSPN, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TINA.tedd to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TINA.tedd GreatSPN Both tools   TINA.tedd GreatSPN
Computed OK 23 45 159   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 27 200
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 45 23 206 Times tool wins 102 125


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, 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.

memory chart time chart

TINA.tedd versus smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for TINA.tedd and 433 for smart, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TINA.tedd to smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TINA.tedd smart Both tools   TINA.tedd smart
Computed OK 94 14 88   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 120 0 Times tool wins 98 98
Error detected 0 21 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 103 42 148 Times tool wins 120 76


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, 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.

memory chart time chart

TINA.tedd versus TINA.sift

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for TINA.tedd and 433 for TINA.sift, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TINA.tedd to TINA.sift are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TINA.tedd TINA.sift Both tools   TINA.tedd TINA.sift
Computed OK 101 4 81   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 115 71
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 99 247 Times tool wins 119 67


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, 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.

memory chart time chart