Artificial neural networks for reliability maximization under budget and weight constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to apply a recent kind of neural networks in a reliability optimization problem for a series system with multiple‐choice constraints incorporated at each subsystem, to maximize the system reliability subject to the system budget and weight. The problem is formulated as a non‐linear binary integer programming problem and characterized as an NP‐hard problem. Design/methodology/approach The design of neural network to solve this problem efficiently is based on a quantized Hopfield network (QHN). It has been found that this network allows one to obtain optimal design solutions very frequently and much more quickly than other Hopfield networks. Research limitations/implications For systems more complex than series systems considered in this paper, the proposed approach needs to be adapted. The QHN‐based solution approach can be applied in many industrial systems where reliability is considered as an important design measure, e.g. in manufacturing systems, telecommunication systems and power systems. Originality/value The paper develops a new efficient method for reliability optimization. The most interesting characteristic of this method is related to its high‐speed computation, since the practical importance lies in the short computation time needed to obtain an optimal or nearly optimal solution for large industrial problems.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".