MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169572499 · doi:10.1287/moor.28.2.382.14484

Optimal Replacement Under Partial Observations

2003· article· en· W2169572499 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics of Operations Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical optimizationMathematicsOptimal stoppingBellman equationPiecewiseState (computer science)Projection (relational algebra)Markov processAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present a framework for the condition-based maintenance optimization. A technical system which can be in one of N operational states or in a failure state is considered. The system state is not observable, except the failure state. The information that is stochastically related to the system state is obtained through condition monitoring at equidistant inspection times. The system can be replaced at any time; a preventive replacement is less costly than failure replacement. The objective is to find a replacement policy minimizing the long run expected average cost per unit time. The replacement problem is formulated as an optimal stopping problem with partial information and transformed to a problem with complete information by applying the projection theorem to a smooth semimartingale process in the objective function. The dynamic equation is derived and analyzed in the piecewise deterministic Markov process stopping framework. The contraction property is shown and an algorithm for the calculation of the value function is presented, illustrated by an example.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it