# Introduction

This page presents how tedd-c 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 tedd-c' 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-c versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2822 runs (1411 for tedd-c and 1411 for GreatSPN, so there are 1411 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing tedd-c to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions | ||||||

tedd-c | GreatSPN | Both tools | tedd-c | GreatSPN | ||

All computed OK | 138 | 26 | 806 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||

tedd-c = GreatSPN | — | — | 2 | Times tool wins | 310 | 677 |

tedd-c > GreatSPN | — | — | 14 | Shortest Execution Time | ||

tedd-c < GreatSPN | — | — | 1 | Times tool wins | 470 | 517 |

Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||

Error detected | 0 | 3 | 0 | |||

Cannot Compute + Time-out | 26 | 135 | 424 |

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-c
computed more values than GreatSPN,
denote cases where tedd-c
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.

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

# tedd-c versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2822 runs (1411 for tedd-c and 1411 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1411 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing tedd-c to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions | ||||||

tedd-c | ITS-Tools | Both tools | tedd-c | ITS-Tools | ||

All computed OK | 139 | 30 | 0 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||

tedd-c = ITS-Tools | — | — | 3 | Times tool wins | 350 | 641 |

tedd-c > ITS-Tools | — | — | 819 | Shortest Execution Time | ||

tedd-c < ITS-Tools | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 757 | 234 |

Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||

Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||

Cannot Compute + Time-out | 30 | 139 | 420 |

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-c
computed more values than ITS-Tools,
denote cases where tedd-c
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-c wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

# tedd-c versus tedd-s

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2822 runs (1411 for tedd-c and 1411 for tedd-s, so there are 1411 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing tedd-c to tedd-s are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions | ||||||

tedd-c | tedd-s | Both tools | tedd-c | tedd-s | ||

All computed OK | 11 | 1 | 947 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||

tedd-c = tedd-s | — | — | 1 | Times tool wins | 547 | 415 |

tedd-c > tedd-s | — | — | 2 | Shortest Execution Time | ||

tedd-c < tedd-s | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 482 | 480 |

Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||

Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||

Cannot Compute + Time-out | 1 | 11 | 449 |

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-c
computed more values than tedd-s,
denote cases where tedd-c
computed less values than tedd-s,
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-c wins when points are below the diagonal, tedd-s wins when points are above the diagonal.

# tedd-c versus 2021-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2822 runs (1411 for tedd-c and 1411 for 2021-gold, so there are 1411 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing tedd-c to 2021-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions | ||||||

tedd-c | 2021-gold | Both tools | tedd-c | 2021-gold | ||

All computed OK | 61 | 2 | 896 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||

tedd-c = 2021-gold | — | — | 4 | Times tool wins | 764 | 199 |

tedd-c > 2021-gold | — | — | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||

tedd-c < 2021-gold | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 755 | 208 |

Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||

Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||

Cannot Compute + Time-out | 2 | 61 | 448 |

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-c
computed more values than 2021-gold,
denote cases where tedd-c
computed less values than 2021-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-c wins when points are below the diagonal, 2021-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.