MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104293546 · doi:10.1287/ijoc.1030.0045

An Algorithm to Compute the Waiting Time Distribution for the M/G/1 Queue

2004· article· en· W2104293546 on OpenAlexafffund
John Shortle, Percy H. Brill, Martin J. Fischer, Donald Gross, D.M. Bevilacqua Masi

Bibliographic record

VenueINFORMS journal on computing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGeorge Mason UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsLaplace transformConvergence (economics)Applied mathematicsQueueing theoryMathematical optimizationAlgorithmMathematicsQueueComputer scienceDistribution (mathematics)Probability distributionMathematical proofMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In many modern applications of queueing theory, the classical assumption of exponentially decaying service distributions does not apply. In particular, Internet and insurance risk problems may involve heavy-tailed distributions. A difficulty with heavy-tailed distributions is that they may not have closed-form, analytic Laplace transforms. This makes numerical methods, which use the Laplace transform, challenging. In this paper, we develop a method for approximating Laplace transforms. Using the approximation, we give algorithms to compute the steady state probability distribution of the waiting time of an M/G/1 queue to a desired accuracy. We give several numerical examples, and we validate the approximation with known results where possible or with simulations otherwise. We also give convergence proofs for the methods.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations54
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINFORMS journal on computingSame topicAdvanced Queuing Theory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207