MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406702100 · doi:10.3390/math13030346

Machine Learning Tool for Analyzing Finite Buffer Queueing Systems

2025· article· en· W4406702100 on OpenAlexaff
Attahiru Sule Alfa, Haitham Abu Ghazaleh

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuffer (optical fiber)Computer scienceQueueing theoryDistributed computingComputer networkTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Queueing delays are one very important performance measure for most engineering network systems. Providing low-delay systems is a major goal of service providers, as it is a leading concern for users/customers. These network systems and their performance measures are typically analyzed using queueing-based models. Even though there are several available strong and precise mathematical models for analyzing queueing systems, their applications are limited to simple and small-scale systems due to their lack of scalability in real-life systems. Researchers have spent a good portion of their efforts toward perfecting the analysis of such systems. Precise and accurate results are available for single-node systems with standard operations. However, for analyzing multi-node systems with complex operations, one has to resort to approximations or simulations. Some of these approximations usually give an oversimplified view of such systems; these approximations remain quite limited. In this paper, we present a machine learning tool that can potentially be used to analyze most finite buffer queues to obtain reasonable approximations for the mean number of items in such systems. The machine learning tool we develop is based on supervised learning using the Michaelis–Menten non-linear model used in biochemistry and the results are simple to obtain. It is fast and very scalable; these characteristics represent the main features of this approach compared to existing systems. The coefficient of determination R2 for all the examples presented are all higher than 90%, with some as high as 99.6%.

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)0.011
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.249
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 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematicsSame topicAdvanced Queuing Theory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207