MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3120266904 · doi:10.1609/aaai.v35i1.16123

Queue-Learning: A Reinforcement Learning Approach for Providing Quality of Service

2021· article· en· W3120266904 on OpenAlexaff
Majid Raeis, Ali Tizghadam, Alberto Leon‐Garcia

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceQueueing theoryReinforcement learningQuality of serviceProbabilistic logicQueueService (business)Distributed computingController (irrigation)Computer networkArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

End-to-end delay is a critical attribute of quality of service (QoS) in application domains such as cloud computing and computer networks. This metric is particularly important in tandem service systems, where the end-to-end service is provided through a chain of services. Service-rate control is a common mechanism for providing QoS guarantees in service systems. In this paper, we introduce a reinforcement learning-based (RL-based) service-rate controller that provides probabilistic upper-bounds on the end-to-end delay of the system, while preventing the overuse of service resources. In order to have a general framework, we use queueing theory to model the service systems. However, we adopt an RL-based approach to avoid the limitations of queueing-theoretic methods. In particular, we use Deep Deterministic Policy Gradient (DDPG) to learn the service rates (action) as a function of the queue lengths (state) in tandem service systems. In contrast to existing RL-based methods that quantify their performance by the achieved overall reward, which could be hard to interpret or even misleading, our proposed controller provides explicit probabilistic guarantees on the end-to-end delay of the system. The evaluations are presented for a tandem queueing system with non-exponential inter-arrival and service times, the results of which validate our controller's capability in meeting QoS constraints.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations24
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial IntelligenceSame topicAdvanced Queuing Theory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207