MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1781067896 · doi:10.1109/ccece.2001.933767

Modelling with queues: an empirical study

2002· article· en· W1781067896 on OpenAlexaff
Przemyslaw Pocheć, Wail Mardini

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFork–join queueMirroringQueueQueueing theoryProcessor sharingQueue management systemParallel computingDistributed computingComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We review the principles of computer performance modelling with queues, and validate the models using the empirical data. We focus on modelling a special configuration of two computers working in tandem: a mirroring system. Distributed system under investigation has implemented as a series of Java applets communicating using the functions of java net.* package. The mirroring aspect of the system is modelled analytically with a difference queue. The difference queue is defined for a network of two queues in parallel, as the queue consisting of elements present in one queue and absent from the other queue. The queueing models under investigation are M/M/1, and M/D/1 queues. In our study we have observed that the service times were not completely random on a typical server and could not be approximated well by exponential distribution. Our results have shown that the service was almost (i.e. with a very small variance) deterministic. We have also found that the d-queue model approximates well the behaviour of the mirroring system under low load conditions, and also provides an upper bound on the delays under high load conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Queuing Theory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207