Introduction

This page presents how 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 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).

tedd versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for tedd and 1953 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing tedd to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

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

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

tedd versus TY

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for tedd and 1953 for TY, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing tedd to TY are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

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 tedd computed more values than TY, denote cases where tedd computed less values than TY, 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.

tedd wins when points are below the diagonal, TY wins when points are above the diagonal.

tedd versus petrivet

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for tedd and 1953 for petrivet, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing tedd to petrivet are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

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 tedd computed more values than petrivet, denote cases where tedd computed less values than petrivet, 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.

tedd wins when points are below the diagonal, petrivet wins when points are above the diagonal.

tedd versus 2025-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for tedd and 1953 for 2025-gold, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing tedd to 2025-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

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 tedd computed more values than 2025-gold, denote cases where tedd computed less values than 2025-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.

tedd wins when points are below the diagonal, 2025-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

tedd versus BVT-2026

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for tedd and 1953 for BVT-2026, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing tedd to BVT-2026 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, tedd is compared to BVT-2026. It is a good way to check how tedd compete in terms of resource consomption with the best tools (even virtual). When tedd is best, the corresponding plots are on the diagonal of the scatter plots chart.

For this tool, there are no real execution so comparisons are useless.