Reinforcement and Deep Reinforcement Learning-based Solutions for Machine Maintenance Planning, Scheduling Policies, and Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systems and machines undergo various failure modes that result in machine health degradation, so maintenance actions are required to restore them back to a state where they can perform their expected functions. Since maintenance tasks are inevitable, maintenance planning is essential to ensure the smooth operations of the production system and other industries at large. Maintenance planning is a decision-making problem that aims at developing optimum maintenance policies and plans that help reduces maintenance costs, extend asset life, maximize their availability, and ultimately ensure workplace safety. Reinforcement learning is a data-driven decision-making algorithm that has been increasingly applied to develop dynamic maintenance plans while leveraging the continuous information from condition monitoring of the system and machine states. By leveraging the condition monitoring data of systems and machines with reinforcement learning, smart maintenance planners can be developed, which is a precursor to achieving a smart factory. This paper presents a literature review on the applications of reinforcement and deep reinforcement learning for maintenance planning and optimization problems. To capture the common ideas without losing touch with the uniqueness of each publication, taxonomies used to categorize the systems were developed, and reviewed publications were highlighted, classified, and summarized based on these taxonomies. Adopted methodologies, findings, and well-defined interpretations of the reviewed studies were summarized in graphical and tabular representations to maximize the utility of the work for both researchers and practitioners. This work also highlights the research gaps, key insights from the literature, and areas for future work.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".