Processing System Fault Detection Using Segmented Reference Paths

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The implementation of machine learning and artificial intelligence in safety-critical industries like automotive, medical, and aviation has increased the demand for high-performance computing, leading to bottlenecks in computational performance due to the PPA (performance-power-area) trade-off and manufacturability, which existing functional safety practices struggle to address effectively.

Innovation Solution

A processing system is designed with separate control, data, and non-safety critical paths, utilizing error detection codes and low-level register transfer level comparisons to detect faults, minimizing area and power consumption while maintaining high diagnostic coverage.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If traditional full duplication methods are used for fault detection, then diagnostic coverage is improved, but area and power consumption increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvediagnostic coverageVSAvoidarea consumption
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSArea of stationary object

Solution Approach 1:

The control path is segmented into multiple comparison locations where comparisons are performed at different hierarchical levels. Instead of duplicating the entire control path, the system divides it into segments that can be compared independently, reducing the overall area required for redundancy while maintaining diagnostic coverage across critical points.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies different levels of redundancy and comparison strategies to different segments of the control path based on their criticality. High-criticality segments receive full duplication and comparison, while less critical segments use simplified comparison mechanisms, optimizing the balance between diagnostic coverage and area consumption.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

2Reliability

If traditional full duplication methods are used for fault detection, then diagnostic coverage is improved, but power consumption increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvediagnostic coverageVSAvoidpower consumption
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSUse of energy by stationary object

Solution Approach 1:

The control path is segmented into multiple comparison locations where comparisons are performed at different hierarchical levels. Instead of duplicating the entire control path, the system divides it into segments that can be compared independently, reducing the overall area required for redundancy while maintaining diagnostic coverage across critical points.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies different levels of redundancy and comparison strategies to different segments of the control path based on their criticality. High-criticality segments receive full duplication and comparison, while less critical segments use simplified comparison mechanisms, optimizing the balance between diagnostic coverage and area consumption.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

3Reliability

If functional safety practices are implemented at hardware level, then safety is improved, but computational performance becomes bottlenecked

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovesafetyVSAvoidcomputational performance
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements a dynamic comparison mechanism where the system can adaptively select which comparison locations to activate based on operational conditions and criticality requirements. This allows the safety mechanism to be more aggressive when needed and more conservative when not needed, reducing the average performance overhead while maintaining safety guarantees.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

Instead of applying full redundancy throughout the entire control path, the patent applies partial redundancy only at strategically selected comparison locations. This partial action approach provides sufficient safety coverage for critical operations while minimizing the performance penalty associated with comprehensive duplication.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentEP4610831A1Processing system and method for fault detection
Publication Date: 2025.09.03 AIMOTIVE KFT
  • EP4610831A1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4610831A1 patent drawingFigure 2~3
  • EP4610831A1 patent drawing

AI summary

The present disclosure relates to a processing system comprising at least one control path and at least one data path, and at least one reference path, wherein each of the reference paths is functionally equivalent to and associated with a respective one of the at least one control paths and at least one comparison location for fault detection. The processing system is configured to compare the at least one control path and the at least one associated reference path at the at least one comparison location for fault detection. The disclosure also relates to a corresponding method.