Model Inspection Refinement for Critical Relay Circuit Defects
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Existing model inspection methods for verifying relay circuit operation logic are insufficient in identifying critical defects in signal lines and circuit elements, leading to non-critical defects being included in counterexamples, increased human error, and prolonged processing times due to repetitive inspections.
Innovation Solution
A verification processing device and method that extracts elements contributing to insecure events, refines cause elements, and allows operators to select and implement measures on an improved model, automating the inspection process to minimize human error and shorten working time.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Reliability
If model inspection comprehensively verifies all combinations of defects in signal lines and circuit elements, then verification completeness is improved, but the number of counterexamples including non-critical defects increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent extracts and removes non-critical counterexamples from the verification results. The counterexample extraction unit identifies and extracts only those counterexamples that represent critical security issues, filtering out non-critical defects that do not contribute to insecure events. This reduces the quantity of counterexamples while maintaining verification completeness for critical issues.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent applies different verification standards and analysis methods to different types of defects. Critical defects in security-sensitive components receive thorough analysis, while non-critical defects are filtered out. This local differentiation of verification quality ensures comprehensive coverage of important areas without unnecessarily processing insignificant defects.
2Measurement precision
If model inspection repeatedly performs counterexample interpretation and re-inspection, then verification accuracy is improved, but processing time increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements a feedback mechanism where counterexample interpretation results are used to guide subsequent verification steps. The system analyzes extracted counterexamples, identifies their criticality, and uses this information to determine whether further re-inspection is necessary. This feedback loop improves verification accuracy by focusing resources on critical cases while avoiding unnecessary repetitive processing of non-critical counterexamples.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent applies partial re-inspection rather than complete re-inspection of all counterexamples. Only counterexamples identified as potentially critical undergo repeated verification and re-inspection, while non-critical counterexamples are handled with minimal processing. This selective approach maintains verification accuracy for important cases while significantly reducing overall processing time.
3Adaptability or versatility
If manual process performs counterexample interpretation and model resetting, then flexibility is improved, but human error increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent implements automated systems that perform counterexample interpretation and model resetting without human intervention. The counterexample extraction unit, verification unit, and model updating unit work autonomously to extract counterexamples, analyze their criticality, and automatically update the verification model. This self-service automation eliminates human errors while maintaining the flexibility to handle diverse verification scenarios through programmable logic.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent replaces manual mechanical processes with automated computational systems. Instead of human operators manually interpreting counterexamples and resetting models, the system uses automated analysis algorithms and software-based model management. This substitution maintains adaptability through configurable parameters and logic while eliminating the reliability issues associated with human error.
Data Source
AI summary
A verification processing device includes: an inspection processing unit which extracts elements of which states change in a process leading to an insecure event by means of a model inspection for a model to be inspected; a refinement processing unit which determines, for each of the extracted elements, whether the element contributes to the occurrence of the insecure event and refines a cause element which is an element of a cause of the insecure event; and a receiving unit which receives, from an operator, a selection of at least one cause element from among a plurality of the cause elements, wherein the inspection processing unit performs the model inspection once again on an improved model to be inspected which is a new model to be inspected in which a prescribed measure is executed for the selected cause element.