Optimizing predictive maintenance and mission assignment to enhance fleet readiness under uncertainty
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many industrial settings, fleets of assets are required to operate through alternating missions and breaks. Fleet Selective Maintenance (FSM) is widely used in such contexts to improve the fleet performance. However, existing FSM models assume that upcoming missions are identical and require only a single system configuration for completion. Additionally, these models typically assume that all missions must be completed, overlooking resource constraints that may prevent readying all systems within the available break duration. This makes mission prioritization and assignment a necessary consideration for the decision-maker. This work proposes a novel FSM model that jointly optimizes system to mission assignment, component and maintenance level selection, and repair task allocation. The proposed framework integrates analytical models for standard components and Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) for sensor-monitored ones, enabling a hybrid reliability assessment approach that better reflects real-world multi-component systems. To account for uncertainties in maintenance and break durations, a chance-constrained optimization model is developed to ensure that maintenance is completed within the available break duration with a specified confidence level. The optimization model is reformulated using two well-known techniques: Sample Average Approximation (SAA) and Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) approximation. A case study of military aircraft fleet maintenance is investigated to demonstrate the accuracy and added value of the proposed approach.
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 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 it