TECHNICAL NOTE—Queueing Systems with Synergistic Servers
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
We consider tandem lines with finite buffers and flexible, heterogeneous servers that are synergistic in that they work more effectively in teams than on their own. Our objective is to determine how the servers should be assigned dynamically to tasks in order to maximize the long-run average throughput. In particular, we investigate when it is better to take advantage of synergy among servers, rather than exploiting the servers' special skills, to achieve the best possible system throughput. We show that when there is no trade-off between server synergy and servers' special skills (because the servers are generalists who are equally skilled at all tasks), the optimal policy has servers working in teams of two or more at all times. Moreover, for Markovian systems with two stations and two servers, we provide a complete characterization of the optimal policy and show that, depending on how well the servers work together, the optimal policy either takes full advantage of servers' special skills, or full advantage of server synergy (and hence there is no middle ground in this case). Finally, for a class of larger Markovian systems, we provide sufficient conditions that guarantee that the optimal policy should take full advantage of server synergy at all times.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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