Security Code Encoding Heuristics for User Error Reduction

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing security codes are prone to user errors during manual entry, leading to frustration and negatively impacting the user experience, as they often require error-detecting or error-correcting mechanisms that increase code length or are limited in their ability to correct mistakes.

Innovation Solution

The implementation of an encoding algorithm that generates security codes based on historical user input data, using a validation entity to identify problematic code constructions and adjust encoding heuristics to reduce the likelihood of user errors by penalizing codes that are commonly mistaken, such as those with symbols easily confused on a QWERTY keyboard layout.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If traditional security codes are used, then code length is short, but user error rate increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveuser error rateVSAvoidcode entry difficulty

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent changes the parameter of code construction by using encoding heuristics that penalize certain code patterns. Instead of using traditional short codes, the system generates codes with specific properties (avoiding easily confused symbols, maintaining sufficient length) that reduce user error while balancing entry difficulty.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #35Parameter changes

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback by analyzing historical user input data to identify problematic code constructions. The encoding algorithm uses this feedback to adjust and penalize codes that are commonly mistaken, continuously improving code reliability based on observed user errors.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

2Reliability

If error-detecting or error-correcting mechanisms are added, then user error tolerance improves, but code length increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveerror toleranceVSAvoidcode length

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLength of stationary object

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies preliminary action by proactively designing codes that are inherently less error-prone through encoding heuristics. Instead of adding error-detecting/correcting mechanisms after code generation, the system prevents errors by penalizing problematic code patterns during the generation process itself, avoiding the need for longer codes with validation mechanisms.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

3Adaptability or versatility

If codes with easily confused symbols are used, then code diversity increases, but mistake likelihood increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecode diversityVSAvoidmistake likelihood

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies local quality by making different parts of the code space have different properties. The encoding algorithm penalizes specific local patterns (easily confused symbol combinations) while allowing other parts of the code space to maintain diversity. This creates localized restrictions on problematic patterns while preserving overall code versatility.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

Data Source

PatentUS10685105B2Encoding of security codes

Publication Date: 2020.06.16 AMAZON TECH INC

AI summary

A method and apparatus for encoding security codes are provided. In the method and apparatus a first code, which may be an erroneous code, is compared to a set of codes to identify a code portion. The code portion may be identified as contributing to inducing erroneous entry of the first code. The likelihood associated with issuing a second code including the code portion may be updated to negatively bias issuing the second code.