Precondition Design Element for Model Verification Constraints

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current model-based design verification tools are resource-intensive and time-consuming, often exercising scenarios that are not relevant to the designer's interests, and struggle to provide comprehensive coverage due to their own configuration complexities, making it difficult to relate verification scenarios to graphical models.

Innovation Solution

A precondition design element is introduced in graphical models to specify constraints that limit verification to meaningful scenarios, allowing designers to guide the verification process through formal analysis and reduce unnecessary execution combinations, thereby improving performance and focus on areas of interest.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If comprehensive verification scenarios are executed to ensure thorough testing, then verification coverage is improved, but verification time and computational resources increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveverification coverageVSAvoidverification time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by having the model designer specify preconditions and postconditions for verification scenarios before execution. These conditions are defined in advance in the graphical model, allowing the verification tool to filter and execute only the relevant scenarios that meet the specified conditions, thereby reducing unnecessary verification time while maintaining comprehensive coverage for critical paths.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements local quality by enabling designers to specify verification conditions locally at different points in the graphical model. Instead of applying uniform verification across the entire model, conditions can be attached to specific blocks, signals, or states, allowing verification resources to be focused on the most critical areas while skipping less important regions.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

2Reliability

If verification tools exercise all possible scenarios to ensure comprehensive coverage, then verification thoroughness is improved, but resource consumption increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveverification thoroughnessVSAvoidcomputational resources

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSUse of energy by moving object

Solution Approach 1:

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements parameter changes by allowing dynamic specification of verification conditions as parameters within the graphical model. Designers can adjust condition thresholds, state ranges, and scenario filters as model parameters, enabling the verification tool to adapt its execution strategy based on the specific requirements of each verification campaign, thus optimizing resource consumption.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

3Adaptability or versatility

If verification scenarios are configured in separate verification tool environments, then verification configuration flexibility is improved, but difficulty in relating to graphical model increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveverification configuration flexibilityVSAvoidrelation between verification scenarios and graphical model

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDifficulty of detecting and measuring

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies merging by integrating verification scenario configuration directly into the graphical model environment. Preconditions, postconditions, and verification parameters are defined within the same graphical interface used for model design, eliminating the need for separate verification tool configurations. This unified environment maintains full configuration flexibility while dramatically improving the ability to relate verification scenarios to the graphical model through direct visual association.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements universality by creating a multi-functional graphical model environment that serves both model design and verification configuration purposes. The same graphical interface and language used for designing the system model are also used for specifying verification conditions, making the tool universally applicable to both functions and eliminating the barrier between model design and verification configuration.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentUS7680632B1Test precondition items for automated analysis and test generation

Publication Date: 2010.03.16 MATHWORKS INC

AI summary

The present invention provides methods and systems for using a design element in a graphical model to represent and identify a precondition for use by a verification tool in verifying an executable form of the design represented by the graphical model. The precondition design element provides a specification of a verification constraint without affecting the behavior of the design. The constraint is to be applied by the verification tool in verifying the design. As such, the precondition design element of the present invention provides a mechanism and formalism in a model-based design approach that is used to constrain automatically generated tests or verification of the design represented by the graphical model.