Control Device Configuration Using Pareto Trade-Off Optimization

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing methods for configuring control systems in complex technical systems, such as traffic light systems, turbines, and robots, require significant manual effort for interactive validation and often result in configurations that lack user acceptance and safety.

Innovation Solution

A method utilizing Pareto optimization, which considers both deviation from a standard configuration and performance, to determine a configuration dataset that balances familiarity with the standard behavior and optimal performance, using machine learning techniques like genetic programming and reinforcement learning.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Productivity

If performance-driven optimization methods are used to configure control systems, then system performance is improved, but safety and user acceptance deteriorate

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem performanceVSAvoidsafety and user acceptance
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the configuration process into two distinct phases: a performance optimization phase that generates candidate configurations, and a validation phase that verifies safety and user acceptance. This segmentation allows each phase to focus on its specific objective without compromising the other, resolving the contradiction between performance improvement and safety maintenance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent performs preliminary validation by checking candidate configurations against safety constraints and user acceptance criteria before they are deployed. This preliminary action ensures that only configurations meeting both performance and safety requirements are implemented, preventing safety issues from arising after performance optimization.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Reliability

If interactive validation methods are used to validate configuration changes, then safety and user acceptance are improved, but manual effort increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesafety and user acceptanceVSAvoidmanual effort
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements automated validation mechanisms that self-verify configuration changes against predefined safety constraints and user acceptance criteria. The system automatically evaluates candidate configurations without requiring manual intervention, thereby maintaining high safety standards while minimizing manual effort. The automated process includes checking constraints, simulating behavior, and validating configurations independently.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

3Manufacturing precision

If multiple test configuration data sets are generated and evaluated using Pareto optimization, then configuration quality is improved, but computational effort increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveconfiguration qualityVSAvoidcomputational effort
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies Pareto optimization to evaluate multiple test configuration data sets, but limits the evaluation to the most promising candidates identified through preliminary filtering. Instead of exhaustively evaluating all possible configurations, the system focuses computational resources on a subset of high-potential configurations, achieving high configuration quality while managing computational effort efficiently.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentEP4208760B1Method and configuration system for configuring a control device for a technical system
Publication Date: 2025.11.12 SIEMENS AG
  • EP4208760B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4208760B1 patent drawingFigure 2

AI summary

In order to configure a control device (CTL), a predefined standard configuration data set (LO) is imported. Furthermore, a deviation from the standard configuration data set (LO) and a control performance are determined for each of a plurality of generated test configuration data sets (LT). Furthermore, a Pareto optimization is carried out for the plurality of test configuration data sets (LT), wherein the deviation and the control performance are used as Pareto target criteria. A configuration data set (LTO) resulting from the Pareto optimization is then selected for configuring the control device (CTL).