Nonlinear Accumulating Priority Queues with Equivalent Linear Proxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1964, Kleinrock proposed a queueing discipline for a single-server queue in which customers from different classes accumulate priority as linear functions of their waiting time. At the instant that a server becomes free, it selects the waiting customer with the highest accumulated priority, provided that the queue is nonempty. He developed a recursion for calculating the expected waiting time for each class. In 2014, Stanford, Taylor, and Ziedins reconsidered this queue, which they termed the accumulating priority queue (APQ), and derived the waiting time distribution for each class. Kleinrock and Finkelstein in 1967 also studied an accumulating priority system in which customers’ priorities increase as a power-law function of their waiting time. They established that it is possible to associate a particular linear APQ with such a power-law APQ, so that the expected waiting times of customers from all classes are preserved. In this paper, we extend their analysis to characterise the class of nonlinear APQs for which an equivalent linear APQ can be found, in the sense that, for identical sample paths of the arrival and service processes, the ordering of all customers is identical at all times in both the linear and nonlinear systems.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".