MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142190389 · doi:10.1613/jair.2446

A Constraint Programming Approach for Solving a Queueing Control Problem

2008· article· en· W2142190389 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicConstraint Satisfaction and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint programmingQueueing theoryHeuristicConstraint (computer-aided design)Constraint satisfactionConcurrent constraint logic programmingStochastic programmingStaffingControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a facility with front room and back room operations, it is useful to switch workers between the rooms in order to cope with changing customer demand. Assuming stochastic customer arrival and service times, we seek a policy for switching workers such that the expected customer waiting time is minimized while the expected back room staffing is sufficient to perform all work. Three novel constraint programming models and several shaving procedures for these models are presented. Experimental results show that a model based on closed-form expressions together with a combination of shaving procedures is the most efficient. This model is able to find and prove optimal solutions for many problem instances within a reasonable run-time. Previously, the only available approach was a heuristic algorithm. Furthermore, a hybrid method combining the heuristic and the best constraint programming method is shown to perform as well as the heuristic in terms of solution quality over time, while achieving the same performance in terms of proving optimality as the pure constraint programming model. This is the first work of which we are aware that solves such queueing-based problems with constraint programming.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence ResearchSame topicConstraint Satisfaction and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207