The Impact of Inspection Cost on Equilibrium, Revenue, and Social Welfare in a Single-Server Queue
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classical models of customer decision making in unobservable queues assume acquiring queue length information is too costly. However, due to recent advancements in communication technology, various services now make this kind of information accessible to customers at a reasonable cost. In our model, which reflects this new opportunity, customers choose among three options: join the queue, balk, or inspect the queue length before deciding whether to join. Inspection is associated with a cost. We compute the equilibrium in this model and prove its existence and uniqueness. Based on two normalized parameters—congestion and service valuation—we map all possible input parameter sets into three scenarios. Each scenario is characterized by a different impact of inspection cost on equilibrium and revenue-maximization queue disclosure policy: fully observable (when inspection cost is very low), fully unobservable (when inspection cost is too high), or observable by demand (when inspection cost is at an intermediate level). We show that when maximizing social welfare, the optimal disclosure policy is zero inspection cost. We show the structure remains the same when a fraction of the customers are considered urgent, that is, they always join, whereas the others are nonurgent and therefore join according to their equilibrium strategy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".