Optimal design of multi‐server Markovian queues with polynomial waiting and service costs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is concerned with the optimal design of queueing systems. The main decisions in the design of such systems are the number of servers, the appropriate control to have on the arrival rates, and the appropriate service rate these servers should possess. In the formulation of the objective function to this problem, most publications use only linear cost rates. The linear rates, especially for the waiting cost, do not accurately reflect reality. Although there are papers involving nonlinear cost functions, no paper has ever considered using polynomial cost functions of degree higher than two. This is because simple formulas for computing the higher moments are not available in the literature. This paper is an attempt to fill this gap in the literature. Thus, the main contributions of our work are as follows: (i) the derivation of a very simple formula for the higher moments of the waiting time for the M/M/s queueing system, which requires only the knowledge of the expected waiting time; (ii) proving their convexity with respect to the design variables; and (iii) modeling and solving more realistic design problems involving general polynomial cost functions. We also focus on simultaneous optimization of the staffing level, arrival rate and service rate. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".