MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254722201 · doi:10.1080/15732479.2015.1076485

Maintenance planning using continuous-state partially observable Markov decision processes and non-linear action models

2015· article· en· W2254722201 on OpenAlexaff
Roland Schöbi, Eleni Chatzi

Bibliographic record

VenueStructure and Infrastructure Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicConcrete Corrosion and Durability
Canadian institutionsCentre de Géomatique du Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartially observable Markov decision processMarkov decision processComputer scienceObservableMathematical optimizationAction (physics)State (computer science)Markov processMarkov chainOperations researchMarkov modelMathematicsMachine learningAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The signs of deterioration in worldwide infrastructure and the associated socio-economic and environmental losses call for sustainable resource management and policy-making. To this end, this work presents an enhanced variant of partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs) for the life cycle assessment and maintenance planning of infrastructure. POMDPs comprise a method, commonly employed in the field of robotics, for decision-making on the basis of uncertain observations. In the work presented herein, a continuous-state POMDP formulation is presented which is adapted to the problem of decision-making for optimal management of civil structures. The aforementioned problem may comprise non-linear and non-deterministic action and observation models. The continuous-state POMDP is herein coupled with a normalised unscented transform (NUT) in order to deliver a framework able to tackle non-linearities that likely characterise action models. The capabilities of this enhanced framework and its applicability to the maintenance planning problem are presented via two applications. In a first illustrative example, the use of the NUT is demonstrated within the framework of the value iteration algorithm. Next, the proposed continuous-state framework is compared against a discrete-state formulation for implementation on a life cycle assessment problem.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations49
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStructure and Infrastructure EngineeringSame topicConcrete Corrosion and DurabilityFrench-language works237,207