MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027036374 · doi:10.1239/jap/1101840557

Pair formation in a Markovian arrival process with two event labels

2004· article· en· W2027036374 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

VenueJournal of Applied Probability · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkovian arrival processPoint processMathematicsMarkov processEvent (particle physics)Process (computing)Poisson distributionCox processStochastic processCompound Poisson processMarkov renewal processMarkov chainSecurity tokenPoisson point processRare eventsRenewal theoryTime reversibilityPoisson processStatistical physicsStatisticsComputer scienceVariable-order Markov modelMarkov modelComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stochastic process resulting when pairs of events are formed from two point processes is a rich source of questions. When the two point processes have different rates, the resulting stochastic process has a mean drift towards either -∞ or +∞. However, when the two processes have equal rates, we end up with a null-recurrent Markov chain and this has interesting behavior. We study this process for both discrete and continuous times and consider special cases with applications in communications networks. One interesting result for applications is the waiting time of a packet waiting for a token, a special case of this pair-formation process. Pair formation by two independent Poisson processes of equal rates results in a point process that is asymptotically a Poisson process of the same rate.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.909
Threshold uncertainty score0.454

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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