MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083335372 · doi:10.1109/ciss.2012.6310776

Predictable revenue under processor sharing

2012· article· en· W2083335372 on OpenAlexaff
Sharad Birmiwal, Ravi R. Mazumdar, Shreyas Sundaram

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevenueCommon value auctionComputer scienceOperator (biology)PaymentProcessor sharingRevenue sharingService (business)Mathematical optimizationOperations researchMicroeconomicsEconomicsFinanceComputer networkMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper considers the case of a single service provider employing processor sharing discipline and serving randomly arriving users with random service requirements. The operator is assumed to charge a user based on the service rate allocated. The pricing mechanisms considered in this paper are the fixed rate pricing, Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) auctions, and congestion-based pricing (or the Lagrange shadow prices). Under such a model, we explicitly calculate the mean revenue of the operator and the mrean payments made by the users by exploiting the property of insensitivity associated with processor sharing. We also consider the effect of imposing a minimum rate requirement of a user on the revenue (a Quality of Service constraint). This paper presents our results and draws insights on the structure of the mean user payments and on the relation between the mean operator revenue and the zeroth, first, and the second moment of the total number of users present in the system under the three pricing mechanisms.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Queuing Theory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207