MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247037558 · doi:10.1017/s002190020002088x

Pair formation in a Markovian arrival process with two event labels

2004· article· en· W4247037558 on OpenAlexafffund
Marcel F. Neuts, Attahiru Sule Alfa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Probability · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMarkovian arrival processPoint processMathematicsMarkov processCox processEvent (particle physics)Process (computing)Stochastic processPoisson distributionMarkov chainMarkov renewal processCompound Poisson processRare eventsPoisson point processSecurity tokenStatistical physicsTime reversibilityApplied mathematicsPoisson processStatisticsComputer scienceMarkov propertyMarkov model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stochastic process resulting when pairs of events are formed from two point processes is a rich source of questions. When the two point processes have different rates, the resulting stochastic process has a mean drift towards either -∞ or +∞. However, when the two processes have equal rates, we end up with a null-recurrent Markov chain and this has interesting behavior. We study this process for both discrete and continuous times and consider special cases with applications in communications networks. One interesting result for applications is the waiting time of a packet waiting for a token, a special case of this pair-formation process. Pair formation by two independent Poisson processes of equal rates results in a point process that is asymptotically a Poisson process of the same rate.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied ProbabilitySame topicAdvanced Queuing Theory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207