Near-Optimal Design for Fault-Tolerant Systems with Homogeneous\n Components under Incomplete Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we study a fault-tolerant control for systems consisting of\nmultiple homogeneous components such as parallel processing machines. This type\nof system is often more robust to uncertainty compared to those with a single\ncomponent. The state of each component is either in the operating mode or\nfaulty. At any time instant, each component may independently become faulty\naccording to a Bernoulli probability distribution. If a component is faulty, it\nremains so until it is fixed. The objective is to design a fault-tolerant\nsystem by sequentially choosing one of the following three options: (a) do\nnothing at zero cost; b) detect the number of faulty components at the cost of\ninspection, and c) fix the system at the cost of repairing faulty components. A\nBellman equation is developed to identify a near-optimal solution for the\nproblem. The efficacy of the proposed solution is verified by numerical\nsimulations.\n
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".