MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254572246 · doi:10.1109/wsc.1994.717195

Application of RPA and the harmonic gradient estimators to a priority queueing system

2005· article· en· W4254572246 on OpenAlexaff
F.J. Vazquez-Abad, S.H. Jacobson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of Winter Simulation Conference · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorQueueing theoryApplied mathematicsComputer scienceImaging phantomFourier seriesMathematical optimizationLayered queueing networkAlgorithmMathematicsControl theory (sociology)StatisticsMathematical analysisControl (management)PhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider a queueing system with C customer classes under a nonpreemptive service discipline. The goal is to find gradient estimators for the stationary average sojourn time per customer of each class under admission control. Due to the service discipline, IPA (infinitesimal perturbation analysis) estimators are not applicable. We present the idea of harmonic gradient (HG) estimation, based on the Fourier decomposition of periodic functions. The canonical estimators can be used to obtain consistent estimators for all the control variables in a single run. However, the large number of values for each parameter required in the estimation can greatly affect the performance. We then describe the implementations of the phantom RPA (rare perturbation analysis) method. This method requires evaluating, in parallel, the dynamics of as many phantom systems as customers in each busy period. Since this number is random, the implementation of the method can be rather complex. We use the Fourier decomposition ideas to construct a hybrid estimator that we call the phantom HG method. We then give simulation results to compare the performance of the estimators and their complexity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of Winter Simulation ConferenceSame topicAdvanced Queuing Theory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207