MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159279836 · doi:10.1214/aoap/1015345342

Join the shortest queue: stability and exact asymptotics

2001· article· en· W2159279836 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert D. Foley, David McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annals of Applied Probability · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsServerQueuePoolingFork–join queueQueueing theoryMathematicsJoin (topology)Computer scienceComputer networkQueue management systemCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the stability of a network serving a patchwork of overlapping regions where customers from a local region are assigned to a collection of local servers.These customers join the queue of the local server with the shortest queue of waiting customers.We then describe how the backlog in the network overloads.We do this in the simple case of two servers each of which receives a dedicated stream of customers in addition to customers from a stream of smart customers who join the shorter queue. There are three distinct ways the backlog can overload. If one server is very fast, then that server takes all the smart customers along with its dedicated customers and keeps its queue small while the dedicated customers at the other server cause the overload.We call this the unpooled case. If the proportion of smart customers is large, then the two servers overload in tandem.We call this the strongly pooled case. Finally, there is the weakly pooled case where both queues overload but in different proportions. The fact that strong pooling can be attained based on a local protocol for overlapping regions may have engineering significance. In addition, this paper extends the methodology developed in McDonald (to appear The Annals of Applied Probability) to cover periodicities. The emphasis here is on sharp asymptotics, not rough asymptotics as in large deviation theory. Moreover, the limiting distributions are for the unscaled process, not for the fluid limit as in large deviation theory. In the strongly pooled case, for instance, we give the limiting distribution of the difference between the two queues as the backlog grows.We also give the exact asymptotics of the mean time until overload.

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)0.024
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations149
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annals of Applied ProbabilitySame topicAdvanced Queuing Theory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207