MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014774334 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.47.10.1421.10262

Server Assignment Policies for Maximizing the Steady-State Throughput of Finite Queueing Systems

2001· article· en· W2014774334 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsServerComputer scienceThroughputQueueing theoryQueueComputer networkService (business)Markov processServer farmDistributed computingMathematical optimizationClient–server modelOperating systemMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a system of finite queues, we study how servers should be assigned dynamically to stations in order to obtain optimal (or near-optimal) long-run average throughput. We assume that travel times between different service facilities are negligible, that each server can work on only one job at a time, and that several servers can work together on one job. We show that when the service rates depend only on either the server or the station (and not both), then all nonidling server assignment policies are optimal. Moreover, for a Markovian system with two stations in tandem and two servers, we show that the optimal policy assigns one server to each station unless that station is blocked or starved (in which case the server helps at the other station), and we specify the criterion used for assigning servers to stations. Finally, we propose a simple server assignment policy for tandem systems in which the number of stations equals the number of servers, and we present numerical results that show that our policy appears to yield near-optimal throughput under general 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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.233 · 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