MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297998800 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2022.4547

Analytical Solution to a Partially Observable Machine Maintenance Problem with Obvious Failures

2022· article· en· W4297998800 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnobservableObservableMathematical optimizationPartially observable Markov decision processComputer scienceMarkov decision processPreventive maintenanceMarkov chainMarkov processMathematicsMarkov modelReliability engineeringEconometricsEngineeringMachine learningStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the maintenance of a machine that deteriorates according to a Markov process until it fails. When failure occurs (which is observable), corrective replacement is made. Otherwise, the machine can be in one of two unobservable working states, and the decision maker can choose production, inspection, or preventive replacement. The state is revealed upon inspection and is reset by corrective or preventive replacement. The objective is to minimize the expected total discounted cost over an infinite horizon. We derive an exact, analytical solution to this problem via a dual framework for partially observable Markov decision processes. The solution can be easily computed without value iteration. We identify six possible structures of the optimal solution, which are represented as graphs. Each graph contains an absorbing, cyclic subgraph that governs the steady-state behavior of the machine. The exact analytical solution facilitates comparative statics analysis, comprehensive numerical studies, and the generation of insights. This paper was accepted by Chung Piaw Teo, optimization. Funding: This work was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada [Grant RGPIN-2014-04979]. Supplemental Material: The online appendix and data are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4547 .

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.190 · 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