Periodic Inspection Optimization of a k-Out-of-n Load-Sharing System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we consider a k-out-of-n load-sharing system with n identical components sharing a certain amount of load. Each time a component fails, its load is distributed to the remaining components; we assume an increase in load increases the hazard rates of the remaining components. The system is periodically inspected to detect failed components. Two cases may occur in an inspection interval: if the number of failed components is less than n-k+1, then the failed components are only rectified at periodic inspections; if the number of failures reaches n-k+1, then the system fails, and at this time, all the failed components are inspected and rectified. A failed component is replaced or minimally repaired according to a probability which depends on its age at the failure time. The components' failures follow a Non-Homogenous Poisson Process (NHPP), and their intensity functions depend on their ages and the loads to which they are exposed at any moment. In this paper, we develop a model to find the optimal inspection interval for such a system, which minimizes the total expected cost incurred over the system lifecycle. We derive the analytical solution for the special case of a 1-out-of-2 system, and discuss its computational difficulties. We then present a simulation algorithm to find the required expected values in the objective function. Several numerical examples are presented to illustrate the proposed model.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".