Learning to Balance the Performance and Deterioration of Aging Systems Through Derating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A common strategy of extending the lifetime of an aging system is to reduce its workload below the normal operating level, a practice known as derating. While derating can slow the deterioration process, it often comes at the expense of reduced performance. Thus, derating involves a trade-off between performance and deterioration. Central to the optimal derating strategy is the relationship between deterioration and workload, also referred to as the pd-relationship. In practice, however, this relationship is rarely known a priori. We consider the workload optimization when the pd-relationship can be adaptively learned through sequential experimentation, or active learning. We show that the workload not only influences the performance and deterioration but also controls the speed of learning. The decision-maker must therefore account for the complex interplay between performance, deterioration, and information in real time. We formulate this problem as a partially observable Markov decision process and characterize the optimal policy. A key structural insight is that the optimal workload is always less than the myopic load. We further propose an efficient algorithm based on the fast Gauss transform to compute the optimal policies. The model is validated with vibration data and the performance of the optimal policy is compared against several heuristic policies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".