MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048144767 · doi:10.1080/07408170701275343

Approximate mean waiting time in a <i>GI</i> / <i>D</i> /1 queue with autocorrelated times to failures

2007· article· en· W2048144767 on OpenAlexafffund
Bariş Balciogtildelu, David L. Jagerman, Tayfur Altıok

Bibliographic record

VenueIIE Transactions · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsThe King's UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of King's College
FundersUniversity of TorontoNational Science Foundation
KeywordsQueueAutocorrelationRenewal theoryProcess (computing)Computer sciencePoisson distributionPoisson processServerMathematicsReal-time computingMathematical optimizationStatisticsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study process completion time and propose an accurate approximation for the mean waiting time in queues with servers experiencing autocorrelated times to failure, which include only busy periods from a repair completion until the next failure. To do this, we employ a three-parameter renewal approximation that represents the stream of autocorrelated times to failure. The approximation gives rise to a renewal interruption process with two-state Hyper-exponential (H2) times to failure. Then we compute the mean waiting time exactly in a queue experiencing H2 times to failure when the job arrival process is Poisson. This model provides an approximation for the mean waiting time of the original queue having an autocorrelated disruption process. We also propose an accurate approximation for queues with renewal job arrival processes when the server interruption process is general.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations22
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIIE TransactionsSame topicAdvanced Queuing Theory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207