A state evolution constraint rule for a control system and a rule-based control legality judgment method, system and device
By constructing state sequences and evolutionary constraint relationships, the problem of being unable to constrain control behavior as a whole and identify progressive tampering in existing technologies is solved. This enables continuous determination of control behavior and anomaly blocking, thereby improving the safety and reliability of the control system.
Patent Information
- Application Number
- CN202610369465.7
- Authority / Receiving Office
- CN · China
- Patent Type
- Applications(China)
- Current Assignee / Owner
- Filing Date
- 2026-03-25
- Publication Date
- 2026-07-03
AI Technical Summary
Existing control systems cannot constrain continuous control behavior as a whole, cannot limit the evolution path of control state, have difficulty identifying gradual control tampering behavior, and lack pre-execution blocking mechanisms, making it difficult to effectively determine the legality of control behavior before control execution.
By constructing a control state sequence and establishing state evolution constraint relationships between state nodes, including unidirectional irreversible rules, state continuity rules, state evolution rationality rules, and control execution pre-blocking rules, the legality of control requests is determined. Execution is only allowed if the constraint conditions are met; otherwise, the request is blocked.
It enables continuous determination of control behavior, improves the ability to identify and block abnormal states, reduces the risk of control states being rolled back, overwritten or reconstructed, has versatility and scalability, and can identify progressive tampering and block abnormal requests.
Smart Images
Figure CN122331253A_ABST
Abstract
Description
Technical Field
[0001] This invention relates to the field of control system safety and control behavior constraint technology, and in particular to a method, system and device for determining the legality of control based on state evolution constraint rules. Background Technology
[0002] Existing control systems primarily rely on methods such as identity authentication, access control, and behavior detection to achieve control security. However, these methods generally suffer from the following problems: 1. Unable to impose overall constraints on continuous control behavior; 2. It is impossible to restrict the evolution path of the control state; 3. Difficulty in identifying gradual control tampering behavior; 4. Most technologies only have the ability to record events after they happen, and lack a mechanism to block events before they are executed. Therefore, existing technologies make it difficult to effectively determine the overall legality of control actions before they are implemented. Summary of the Invention
[0003] This invention provides a method for determining the legality of control through state evolution constraint rules. By embedding rule constraints into the control execution path, structural constraints on control behavior are achieved. (a) Purpose of the invention The purpose of this invention is to provide a control legality determination method, system, and device based on state evolution constraint rules, which extends the control legality determination from a single point to a continuous determination based on historical state chains, thereby improving the control system's ability to identify and block abnormal state transitions, discontinuous control behaviors, and gradual control tampering. (II) Technical Solution To achieve the above objectives, the present invention adopts the following technical solution: A control state sequence is constructed, and state evolution constraint relationships are established between control state nodes. The state evolution constraint relationships include at least the unidirectional irreversibility rule of the state sequence, the state continuity constraint rule, the state evolution rationality rule, the abnormal state propagation rule, and the control execution pre-blocking rule. When a control request is received, the execution rule is determined based on the current state node to be generated and the control state sequence. The control request is allowed to enter the execution path only when the rule determination meets the preset constraint conditions. When the rule determination does not meet the constraint conditions, the execution of the control request is blocked, and an abnormal state node is generated and written into the control state sequence to constrain subsequent control behaviors. (III) Beneficial Effects Compared with the prior art, the present invention has at least the following beneficial effects: 1. The validity of control is extended from a single verification to a continuous determination based on state sequences, which improves the ability to identify hidden abnormal control behaviors; 2. By constraining the direction of state evolution through unidirectional irreversible rules of state sequence, the risk of control state being rolled back, overwritten, or reconstructed is reduced; 3. By constraining the state change process through state evolution rationality rules, the system not only judges "whether a change has occurred," but also "whether the change is reasonable." 4. By using rules for propagating abnormal states, abnormalities are not only identified, but also have a continuous constraining effect on subsequent control actions; 5. By controlling the pre-execution blocking rules, structural blocking of control requests is achieved to prevent abnormal requests from entering the execution scheduling phase; 6. The rule system does not rely on specific identity authentication mechanisms, encryption algorithms, or data structures, and has strong universality and scalability. Attached Figure Description Figure 1 This is a flowchart illustrating the legality determination method of the present invention. Figure 2 This is a schematic diagram of the unidirectional evolution relationship of the control state sequence of the present invention; Figure 3 is a schematic diagram of the relationship between continuity determination and execution path control in this invention; Figure 4 is a schematic diagram of the abnormal state writing and subsequent constraint process of the present invention; Figure 5 This is a schematic diagram of the module structure of the legality determination system of the present invention. Detailed Implementation The present invention will be further described below with reference to embodiments. These embodiments are only used to explain the technical solutions of the present invention and are not intended to limit the scope of protection of the present invention. Example 1: Legality Determination of Basic Controls In a control system, the system generates a control state node for each control action and appends this node to the end of the control state sequence in the order of generation. Each control state node corresponds to the result state of the current control action and has an evolutionary relationship with at least one preceding state node. When a new control request is received, the system first performs rule determination based on the current state node to be generated and the historical control state nodes. The rule determination includes at least three parts: first, historical consistency verification, which is used to determine whether the current state can form a continuous evolution relationship with the historical state; second, state continuity verification, which is used to determine whether there is a continuous association between state nodes; and third, state evolution rationality verification, which is used to determine whether the current state change conforms to the preset evolution constraints. If the above checks pass, the control request is allowed to enter the execution path; if any check fails, the execution of the control request is blocked, and an abnormal state node is generated and written into the control state sequence. Example 2: Propagation of Abnormal States In one implementation, when the control validity determination fails, the system not only blocks the current control request but also writes an abnormal state node to the end of the control state sequence. This abnormal state node participates in the subsequent control state node generation process and continuously constrains the subsequent determination results. For example, when generating subsequent state nodes, the system can raise the judgment threshold, restrict control permissions, or change the state generation path based on abnormal state nodes, thus allowing abnormal states to continue to affect subsequent control behaviors until they are processed. In this way, the system can prevent abnormal control behaviors from being ignored or repackaged as legitimate states in later stages. Example 3: State Continuity Constraints In one implementation, the state continuity constraint rule is not limited to temporal continuity, but simultaneously considers generation sequence continuity, state association continuity, and behavioral context continuity. Generation sequence continuity is used to determine whether state nodes are formed in a predetermined order; state association continuity is used to determine whether the current state can be continuously associated with multiple historical states; and behavioral context continuity is used to determine whether state changes are consistent with the current control context. If any dimension of continuity is disrupted, the current state is marked as an anomalous state and enters the anomalous propagation process. Example 4: Rationality Constraints of State Evolution In one implementation, the system makes a reasonable judgment on the magnitude, direction, and pattern of state changes. For example, when a control state changes by a magnitude exceeding a preset range, reverses, or jumps out of line with historical patterns compared to historical states, the system determines that state as an abnormal evolution state. This evolutionary rationality rule does not depend on specific state content, but only on the characteristics of the relationships between states, so it can be applied to different types of control systems and different types of controlled objects. Example 5: Execute pre-blocking In one implementation, a control request must undergo rule evaluation before entering the execution scheduling phase. If the rule evaluation is successful, the execution path switches from a default closed state to an open state, and the control request proceeds to subsequent processing; if the rule evaluation fails, the execution path remains blocked, and the control request cannot enter the execution scheduling phase, thereby achieving structural blocking. Example 6: System Implementation The control legality determination system may include a state sequence construction module, a rule constraint module, a determination module, an execution path control module, and an abnormal state handling module. The state sequence construction module is used to construct a control state sequence; the rule constraint module is used to establish state evolution constraint relationships; the determination module is used to perform rule determination on the current state node to be generated; the execution path control module is used to control the entry and blocking of control requests; and the abnormal state handling module is used to generate and process abnormal state nodes. Example 7: Applicable Scenarios This invention is applicable to robot control systems, industrial control systems, terminal equipment control systems, and distributed control systems. In robot control systems, this invention can be used to constrain the continuity and legality of robot command execution; in industrial control systems, this invention can be used to constrain the evolution path of process control states; in terminal equipment control systems, this invention can be used to constrain equipment permission changes and operation execution; in distributed control systems, this invention can be used to constrain the state consistency and evolution continuity among multiple control nodes.
Claims
1. A method for determining the legality of control based on state evolution constraint rules, characterized in that, include: S1. Construct a control state sequence in the control system. The control state sequence consists of multiple control state nodes. Each control state node is arranged in order of generation and written to the storage unit in an appending manner. S2. Based on a preset rule model, establish state evolution constraint relationships between the control state nodes. The state evolution constraint relationships are used to describe the reachability, continuity, and change constraints between the control state nodes. S3. Upon receiving a control request, a candidate control state node corresponding to the control request is generated, and the rule determination module performs rule determination calculation based on the candidate control state node and the control state sequence. S4. The rule determination operation is based on at least the following information: the association relationship between the candidate control state node and one or more historical control state nodes, the state sequence structure relationship, and the state change relationship; S5. Output the rule determination result to the execution path control module; S6. When the rule determination result meets the preset constraint conditions, the control execution channel is opened, the control request enters the execution scheduling stage, and the candidate control state node is written into the control state sequence. S7. When the rule determination result does not meet the preset constraints, maintain the execution channel closed state and generate an abnormal state node to be written into the control state sequence to participate in subsequent rule determination.
2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The control status node is stored in the form of a data structure, which includes at least a node identifier field, a previous node association field, and a status description field.
3. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The state evolution constraint relationship includes a unidirectional irreversible constraint on the state sequence, which restricts the control state node to be generated only by appending it to the end of the sequence.
4. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The state evolution constraint relationship includes state association constraints, which restrict the generation of any control state node from depending on at least one preceding control state node.
5. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Each control state node in the control state sequence participates in the construction of the state evolution relationship.
6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, When any control state node undergoes an abnormal change, its associated subsequent control state nodes are marked as abnormal state nodes or failed nodes.
7. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The state evolution constraint relationship includes state continuity constraints, which are used to describe the continuous association between control state nodes.
8. The method according to claim 7, characterized in that, When performing continuity determination, the rule determination module selects at least multiple historical control state nodes to participate in the determination calculation.
9. The method according to claim 7, characterized in that, When the continuity constraint is violated, the candidate control state node is determined to be an abnormal state node.
10. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The state evolution constraint relationship includes state evolution rationality constraints, which are used to describe the changing relationships between control state nodes.
11. The method according to claim 10, characterized in that, The change relationship includes at least one of the following: the magnitude of the state change, the direction of the state change, or the state change pattern.
12. The method according to claim 10, characterized in that, When the change of the candidate control state node relative to the historical control state node exceeds a preset range, it is determined to be an abnormal evolution.
13. The method according to claim 10, characterized in that, The rationality constraint of the state evolution is determined based on the relationship characteristics between state nodes.
14. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The state evolution constraint relationship includes anomaly state propagation constraints, which are used to enable anomaly state nodes to participate in the generation process of subsequent control state nodes.
15. The method according to claim 14, characterized in that, Subsequent control state nodes respond to historical abnormal state nodes when they are generated.
16. The method according to claim 15, characterized in that, The response method includes at least one of raising the rule judgment threshold, restricting control permissions, or changing the state generation path.
17. The method according to claim 14, characterized in that, Abnormal state nodes continue to affect the results of subsequent rule judgments until they are processed.
18. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The state evolution constraint relationship includes control execution pre-constraints, which restrict control requests from completing rule determination before entering the execution scheduling phase.
19. The method according to claim 18, characterized in that, When the rule fails to pass the judgment, the execution path control module keeps the execution channel closed.
20. The method according to claim 18, characterized in that, The execution channel is the transmission path for control requests from the input interface to the execution unit.
21. The method according to claim 18, characterized in that, The execution channel is closed by default and is only opened when the rule is approved.
22. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The rule determination operation is executed by the processor, which calculates the relationship between state nodes based on a preset rule model.
23. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The control state sequence is stored in a non-volatile memory or a secure storage unit.
24. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The method is applicable to robot control systems, industrial control systems, terminal equipment control systems, or distributed control systems.
25. A control legality determination system, characterized in that, include: The state sequence construction module is used to construct control state sequences; The rule constraint module is used to establish state evolution constraint relationships; The rule determination module is used to perform rule determination calculations; The execution path control module is used to control the opening or closing of the execution channel; An exception handling module is used to generate exception state nodes; The system is configured to perform the method according to any one of claims 1 to 24.