Insensitivity of the mean field limit of loss systems under SQ(<i>d</i>) routeing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this paper, we study a large multi-server loss model under the SQ( d ) routeing scheme when the service time distributions are general with finite mean. Previous works have addressed the exponential service time case when the number of servers goes to infinity, giving rise to a mean field model. The fixed point of the limiting mean field equations (MFEs) was seen to be insensitive to the service time distribution in simulations, but no proof was available. While insensitivity is well known for loss systems, the models, even with state-dependent inputs, belong to the class of linear Markov models. In the context of SQ( d ) routeing, the resulting model belongs to the class of nonlinear Markov processes (processes whose generator itself depends on the distribution) for which traditional arguments do not directly apply. Showing insensitivity to the general service time distributions has thus remained an open problem. Obtaining the MFEs in this case poses a challenge due to the resulting Markov description of the system being in positive orthant as opposed to a finite chain in the exponential case. In this paper, we first obtain the MFEs and then show that the MFEs have a unique fixed point that coincides with the fixed point in the exponential case, thus establishing insensitivity. The approach is via a measure-valued Markov process representation and the martingale problem to establish the mean field limit.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".