Monitor Processor Validation for Automotive Computational Accelerators

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing diagnostic methods are unsuitable for testing massively parallel processors in automotive vehicles, which are critical for automated driving systems, due to their complex calculations and resource-intensive nature.

Innovation Solution

A system and method that utilize a monitor processor to provide test inputs, such as image frames or LiDAR point clouds, to a computational accelerator processor, with the ability to switch to a degraded mode if validation criteria are not met, ensuring the system's reliability and resource utilization.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If existing diagnostic methods are used to test computational accelerator processors, then the testing process becomes resource-intensive and complex, but the reliability of validation decreases due to unsuitability for massively parallel processors

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvevalidation reliabilityVSAvoidtesting complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent creates a simplified test model that copies the essential functional characteristics of the computational accelerator processor without replicating its full complexity. This test model uses a reduced representation of the parallel processing architecture, allowing validation to proceed with manageable resource requirements while maintaining reliability through preserved critical processing pathways.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

Solution Approach 2:

The validation process is segmented into discrete testable units corresponding to groups of parallel processing cores. Rather than testing all cores simultaneously with full diagnostic overhead, the system divides the computational accelerator into segments that can be validated independently, reducing overall testing complexity while maintaining comprehensive coverage.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

2Adaptability or versatility

If a monitor processor provides test inputs to validate computational accelerator processor, then validation capability is improved, but the system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvevalidation capabilityVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The monitor processor is designed with multi-functionality, serving both as a system monitoring component and as a test input generator. This universal component can switch between normal operational monitoring and active validation modes, providing comprehensive validation capability without requiring a completely separate dedicated testing system that would increase overall complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The monitor processor acts as an intermediary between the external validation system and the computational accelerator processor. It receives test inputs, processes them through the accelerator, and compares outputs against expected results, mediating the validation process in a way that simplifies the interface between testing infrastructure and the complex parallel processing architecture.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Measurement precision

If test inputs utilize a threshold number of parallel processing cores, then processing thoroughness is improved, but the resource utilization during testing increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveprocessing validation precisionVSAvoidenergy consumption during testing
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSUse of energy by moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies partial action by utilizing only a threshold number of parallel processing cores during validation rather than engaging all available cores. This selective activation provides sufficient processing validation precision to detect faults while avoiding the excessive energy consumption that would result from full-core utilization during testing operations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentUS10981578B2System and method for hardware verification in an automotive vehicle
Publication Date: 2021.04.20 GM GLOBAL TECHNOLOGY OPERATIONS LLC
  • US10981578B2 patent drawing
  • US10981578B2 patent drawing
  • US10981578B2 patent drawing

AI summary

An automotive vehicle includes at least one sensor configured to detect features in a region proximate the exterior of the vehicle, at least one actuator configured to control vehicle steering, propulsion, shifting, or braking, and an automated driving system selectively operable in a nominal mode and in a degraded mode. The automated driving system is configured to generate an actuator control signal for the at least one actuator in response to sensor signals from the at least one sensor. The automated driving system includes a computational accelerator processor. The vehicle further includes a monitor processor in communication with the automated driving system. The monitor processor is configured to provide a test input for processing by the computational accelerator processor, receive a test output from the computational accelerator processor, and in response to the test output not satisfying a validation criterion, control the automated driving system in the degraded mode.