MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565446097

Modelling decisions in layered queueing networks

2016· article· en· W2565446097 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSummer Computer Simulation Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTimeoutComputer scienceQueueing theoryLayered queueing networkPetri netDistributed computingStochastic Petri netResource allocationResource (disambiguation)Real-time computingComputer network
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Layered queueing networks (LQN), as an extended queueing network, are used widely to evaluate many distributed systems which have a client-server architecture. However, LQN models also share the difficulty that convention queueing networks have in modelling state-based behavior, such as the decisions made in exception handling during resource allocations. In order to enhance the modelling power of LQN models to handle decisions, this paper defines four decision patterns: abort, timeout, infinite-retries and finite-retries, which are commonly used in the exception handling during resource allocations. These four decision patterns are generalized to two cases: timeout and retry decisions and implemented in the LQN simulation tool, LQSIM. The LQN input language was modified to allow these actions to be specified directly. The simulator was then verified by comparing its results from solving a model a small-scale web server model to results found from solving a Petri net model using GreatSPN. The results were quite similar to each other despite the extensive simplifications in the Petri net model required for solution.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.899
Threshold uncertainty score0.526

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.222 · 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