Optimal CBM policy with two sampling intervals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a novel condition-based maintenance (CBM) policy with two sampling intervals for a system subject to stochastic deterioration described by the Cox’s proportional hazards model (PHM). Design/methodology/approach In this paper, the new or renewed system is monitored using a longer sampling interval. When the estimated hazard function of the system exceeds a warning limit, the observations are taken more frequently, i.e., the sampling interval changes to a shorter one. Preventive maintenance is performed when either the hazard function exceeds a maintenance threshold or the system age exceeds a pre-determined age. A more expensive corrective maintenance is performed upon system failure. The proposed model is formulated in the semi-Markov decision process (SMDP) framework. Findings The optimal maintenance policy is found and a computational algorithm based on policy iteration for SMDP is developed to obtain the control thresholds as well as the sampling intervals minimizing the long-run expected average cost per unit time. Research limitations/implications A numerical example is presented to illustrate the whole procedure. The newly proposed maintenance policy with two sampling intervals outperforms previously developed maintenance policies using PHM. The paper compares the proposed model with a single sampling interval CBM model and well-known age-based model. Formulas for the conditional reliability function and the mean residual life are also derived for the proposed model. Sensitivity analysis has been performed to study the effect of the changes in the Weibull parameters on the average cost. Practical implications The results show that considerable cost savings can be obtained by implementing the maintenance policy developed in this paper. Originality/value Unlike the previous CBM policies widely discussed in the literature which use sequential or periodic monitoring, the authors propose a new sampling strategy based on two sampling intervals. From the economic point of view, when the sampling is costly, it is advantageous to monitor the system less frequently when it is in a healthy state and more frequently when it deteriorates and enters the unhealthy state.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".