An overview of some classical models and discussion of the signature‐based models of preventive maintenance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In reliability engineering literature, a large number of research papers on optimal preventive maintenance (PM) of technical systems (networks) have appeared based on preliminary many different approaches. According to the existing literature on PM strategies, the authors have considered two scenarios for the component failures of the system. The first scenario assumes that the components of the system fail due to aging, while the second scenario assumes the system fails according to the fatal shocks arriving at the system from external or internal sources. This article reviews different approaches on the optimal strategies proposed in the literature on the optimal maintenance of multi‐component coherent systems. The emphasis of the article is on PM models given in the literature whose optimization criteria (cost function and stationary availability) are developed by using the signature‐based (survival signature‐based) reliability of the system lifetime. The notions of signature and survival signature, defined for systems consisting of one type or multiple types of components, respectively, are powerful tools assessing the reliability and stochastic properties of coherent systems. After giving an overview of the research works on age‐based PM models of one‐unit systems and ‐out‐of‐ systems, we provide a more detailed review of recent results on the signature‐based and survival signature‐based PM models of complex systems. In order to illustrate the theoretical results on different proposed PM models, we examine two real examples of coherent systems both numerically and graphically.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".