Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is concerned with optimal maintenance decision making in the presence of model misspecification. Specifically, we are interested in the situation where the decision maker fears that a nominal Bayesian model may be miss-specified or unrealistic, and would like to find policies that work well even when the underlying model is flawed. To this end, we formulate a robust dynamic optimization model for condition-based maintenance in which the decision maker explicitly accounts for distrust in the nominal Bayesian model by solving a worst-case problem against a second agent, “nature,” who has the ability to alter the underlying model distributions in an adversarial manner. The primary focus of our analysis is on establishing structural properties and insights that hold in the face of model miss-specification. In particular, we prove (i) an explicit characterization of nature’s optimal response through an analysis of the robust dynamic programming equation, (ii) convexity results for both the robust value function and the optimal robust stopping region, (iii) a general robustness result for the preventive maintenance paradigm, and (iv) the optimality of a robust control limit policy for the important subclass of Bayesian change point detection problems. We illustrate our theoretical result on a real-world application from the mining industry.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".