AMVA techniques for high service time variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Motivated by experience gained during the validation of a recent Approximate Mean Value Analysis (AMVA) model of modern shared memory architectures, this paper re-examines the “standard” AMVA approximation for non-exponential FCFS queues. We find that this approximation is often inaccurate for FCFS queues with high service time variability. For such queues, we propose and evaluate: (1) AMVA estimates of the mean residual service time at an arrival instant that are much more accurate than the standard AMVA estimate, (2) a new AMVA technique that provides a much more accurate estimate of mean center residence time than the standard AMVA estimate, and (3) a new AMVA technique for computing the mean residence time at a “downstream” queue which has a more bursty arrival process than is assumed in the standard AMVA equations. Together, these new techniques increase the range of applications to which AMVA may be fruitfully applied, so that for example, the memory system architecture of shared memory systems with complex modern processors can be analyzed with these computationally efficient methods.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".