fond
Model Checking Contest 2020
10th edition, Paris, France, June 23, 2020
TINA.tedd compared to other tools («Known» 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 «Known» 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 2036 runs (1018 for TINA.tedd and 1018 for GreatSPN, so there are 1018 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 120 30 476   Smallest Memory Footprint
TINA.tedd = GreatSPN 71 Times tool wins 130 581
TINA.tedd > GreatSPN 14   Shortest Execution Time
TINA.tedd < GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 348 363
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 30 120 307


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 2036 runs (1018 for TINA.tedd and 1018 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1018 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 98 29 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
TINA.tedd = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 113 597
TINA.tedd > ITS-Tools 582   Shortest Execution Time
TINA.tedd < ITS-Tools 1 Times tool wins 529 181
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 29 96 308


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 2036 runs (1018 for TINA.tedd and 1018 for Tapaal, so there are 1018 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 469 5 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
TINA.tedd = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 471 215
TINA.tedd > Tapaal 212   Shortest Execution Time
TINA.tedd < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 553 133
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 5 469 332


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 2036 runs (1018 for TINA.tedd and 1018 for smart, so there are 1018 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 345 10 334   Smallest Memory Footprint
TINA.tedd = smart 0 Times tool wins 478 213
TINA.tedd > smart 2   Shortest Execution Time
TINA.tedd < smart 0 Times tool wins 595 96
Do not compete 0 193 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 106 247 231


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 2036 runs (1018 for TINA.tedd and 1018 for 2019-Gold, so there are 1018 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 36 1 551   Smallest Memory Footprint
TINA.tedd = 2019-Gold 93 Times tool wins 37 645
TINA.tedd > 2019-Gold 1   Shortest Execution Time
TINA.tedd < 2019-Gold 0 Times tool wins 603 79
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 34 336


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