Rate-Based Daily Arrival Process Models with Application to Call Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose, develop, and compare new stochastic models for the daily arrival rate in a call center. Following standard practice, the day is divided into time periods of equal length (e.g., 15 or 30 minutes), the arrival rate is assumed random but constant in time in each period, and the arrivals are from a Poisson process, conditional on the rate. The random rate for each period is taken as a deterministic base rate (or expected rate) multiplied by a random busyness factor having mean 1. Models in which the busyness factors are independent across periods, or in which a common busyness factor applies to all periods, have been studied previously. But they are not sufficiently realistic. We examine alternative models for which the busyness factors have some form of dependence across periods. Maximum likelihood parameter estimation for these models is not easy, mainly because the arrival rates themselves are never observed. We develop specialized techniques to perform this estimation. We compare the goodness-of-fit of these models on arrival data from three call centers, both in-sample and out-of-sample. Our models can represent arrivals in many other types of systems as well. Estimating a model for the vector of counts (the number of arrivals in each period) is generally easier than for the vector of rates, because the counts can be observed, but a model for the rates is often more convenient and natural, e.g., for simulation. We examine and provide insight on the relationship between these two types of modeling. In particular, we give explicit formulas for the relationship between the correlation between rates and that between counts in two given periods, and for the variance and dispersion index in a given period. These formulas imply that for a given correlation between the rates, the correlation between the counts is much smaller in low traffic than in high traffic.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".