MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405766477 · doi:10.1002/qre.3714

Joint Optimization of Condition‐Based Maintenance and Production Rate Using Reinforcement Learning Algorithms

2024· article· en· W4405766477 on OpenAlexaff
Hasan Rasay, Fariba Azizi, Mehrnaz Salmani, Farnoosh Naderkhani

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality and Reliability Engineering International · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReliability and Maintenance Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersKermanshah University of Technology
KeywordsReinforcement learningMarkov decision processProduction (economics)Computer scienceTime horizonProduction planningScheduling (production processes)Mathematical optimizationQ-learningProduction controlHyperparameterPreventive maintenanceDynamic programmingIndustrial engineeringOperations researchMarkov processEngineeringAlgorithmReliability engineeringMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Maintenance has always been a crucial aspect of the manufacturing and industrial sectors. There is a recent surge of interest in utilizing advanced machine learning, and reinforcement learning models to enhance maintenance strategies. In this regard, this paper focuses on the development of a joint optimization model of maintenance and production for a special type of production system that has an adjustable production rate, where the system's deterioration is closely related to the production rate. When the production rate is increased, the expected deterioration of the system also increases. To control the deterioration of the system, the paper proposes two main actions or policies: maintenance policy and production policy. These policies involve scheduling and conducting maintenance actions on the system and adjusting the production rate, respectively. To solve the optimization problem of minimizing the expected costs of the system during a finite planning horizon, the paper develops a Markov decision process and employs reinforcement learning algorithms such as Q‐learning and SARSA. The hyperparameters of the algorithms are tuned using a value‐iteration algorithm of dynamic programming. The developed optimal actions given the state of the system ensure efficient management of the production system while controlling the deterioration of the system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality and Reliability Engineering InternationalSame topicReliability and Maintenance OptimizationFrench-language works237,207