MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225342150 · doi:10.1111/poms.13728

Increasing social welfare with delays: Strategic customers in the M/G/1 orbit queue

2022· article· en· W4225342150 on OpenAlexaff
Opher Baron, Antonis Economou, Athanasia Manou

Bibliographic record

VenueProduction and Operations Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOrbit (dynamics)Service (business)QueueUnobservableQueueing theoryFunction (biology)Social WelfareQueueing systemOperations researchService systemRetrial queueBusinessComputer networkEconomicsMarketingMathematicsEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strategic customers typically patronize service systems at a higher rate than the socially optimal one. Much literature has focused on inducing customers to join such systems at this latter rate. This entire literature considers nonidling policies that are the focus of queueing theory. We demonstrate that strategically imposing delays into service systems can improve the social welfare using the M/G/1 queue with orbit. This versatile queueing model has been extensively studied from a performance evaluation perspective. In this system, customers who arrive and find the server idle begin immediately their service. However, strategic customers who find the server busy decide whether to balk or join a virtual queue, that is, an orbit. Then, each time the server finishes a service, he begins to retrieve a customer from the orbit and the corresponding retrieving time is not negligible. These retrieving times function as extra delays that are imposed on customers that find a busy server. We show that when customers are strategic, there are certain ranges of the parameters where delaying the orbit customers can increase the welfare of a system or even maximize it. To this end, we characterize and compute the equilibrium strategies for the customers' joining/balking dilemma. We consider both the unobservable and observable versions of the system, and provide some insight on the optimal delay and level of information in such systems. We further show that the welfare for this system is higher than the corresponding standard M/G/1 queue with the same delay.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProduction and Operations ManagementSame topicAdvanced Queuing Theory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207