Reliability-based reinforcement learning driven maintenance policy optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study presents a reinforcement learning (RL) method called the Q-learning algorithm to determine the best maintenance policy for equipment. This involves an artificial intelligence agent making decisions and an environment representing the equipment. The agent creates maintenance policies and takes actions, while the environment determines state transitions and rewards based on the actions chosen. The optimization of the maintenance policy starts with predicting equipment reliability using sensor data. This prediction method combines Back Propagation Neural Network (BPNN) algorithms with the Boxing Match Algorithm (BMA), an evolutionary meta-heuristic algorithm. A novel weight update strategy enhances the performance of artificial neural networks in reliability prediction. This integrated model, BMA-BPNN, aims to improve the accuracy of forecasted reliability. The study involves forecasting equipment reliability to determine critical levels, incorporating cost and risk considerations into decision-making for optimizing maintenance policies. As a result, the Q-learning algorithm is used to identify the best maintenance actions based on equipment reliability. Implementing an automated maintenance system that considers equipment reliability and costs can help reduce accidents resulting from maintenance program deficiencies. This study thus contributes to the field by providing an efficient approach to equipment maintenance.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".