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

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 «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 TINA.tedd' 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).

TINA.tedd versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for TINA.tedd 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 TINA.tedd to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  TINA.tedd GreatSPN Both tools   TINA.tedd GreatSPN
All computed OK 124 35 601   Smallest Memory Footprint
TINA.tedd = GreatSPN 77 Times tool wins 134 717
TINA.tedd > GreatSPN 14   Shortest Execution Time
TINA.tedd < GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 388 463
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 35 124 378


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 TINA.tedd computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where TINA.tedd 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.

TINA.tedd wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

TINA.tedd versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for TINA.tedd 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 TINA.tedd to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  TINA.tedd ITS-Tools Both tools   TINA.tedd ITS-Tools
All computed OK 118 44 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
TINA.tedd = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 138 722
TINA.tedd > ITS-Tools 697   Shortest Execution Time
TINA.tedd < ITS-Tools 1 Times tool wins 638 222
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 8 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 44 110 369


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 TINA.tedd computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where TINA.tedd 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.

TINA.tedd wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

TINA.tedd versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for TINA.tedd and 1229 for Tapaal, 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 TINA.tedd to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  TINA.tedd Tapaal Both tools   TINA.tedd Tapaal
All computed OK 567 6 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
TINA.tedd = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 569 253
TINA.tedd > Tapaal 249   Shortest Execution Time
TINA.tedd < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 668 154
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 567 407


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 TINA.tedd computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where TINA.tedd 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.

TINA.tedd wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

TINA.tedd versus smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for TINA.tedd and 1229 for smart, 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 TINA.tedd to smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  TINA.tedd smart Both tools   TINA.tedd smart
All computed OK 416 11 398   Smallest Memory Footprint
TINA.tedd = smart 0 Times tool wins 576 251
TINA.tedd > smart 2   Shortest Execution Time
TINA.tedd < smart 0 Times tool wins 721 106
Do not compete 0 213 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 121 312 292


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 TINA.tedd computed more values than smart, denote cases where TINA.tedd computed less values than smart, 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.

TINA.tedd wins when points are below the diagonal, smart wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

TINA.tedd versus 2019-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for TINA.tedd 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 TINA.tedd to 2019-Gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  TINA.tedd 2019-Gold Both tools   TINA.tedd 2019-Gold
All computed OK 44 2 678   Smallest Memory Footprint
TINA.tedd = 2019-Gold 93 Times tool wins 45 773
TINA.tedd > 2019-Gold 1   Shortest Execution Time
TINA.tedd < 2019-Gold 0 Times tool wins 734 84
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 4 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 40 411


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 TINA.tedd computed more values than 2019-Gold, denote cases where TINA.tedd 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.

TINA.tedd wins when points are below the diagonal, 2019-Gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart