MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2565446097

Modelling decisions in layered queueing networks

2016· article· en· W2565446097 on OpenAlexaff
Lianhau Li, Greg Franks

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.

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)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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

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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSummer Computer Simulation ConferenceSame topicSoftware System Performance and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207