MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415220068 · doi:10.1287/msom.2024.1515

Queueing Causal Models: Comparative Analytics in Queueing Systems

2025· article· en· W4415220068 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueManufacturing & Service Operations Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAdvanced Queuing Theory Analysis
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueueing theoryLayered queueing networkAnalyticsProcess (computing)Mean value analysisService (business)G-network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problem definition: Much of the focus of queueing theory (QT) is on performance evaluation that supports comparative analytics—that is, comparing performance measures under different interventions. However, closed-form queueing models are very sensitive to assumptions. We develop a data-driven Structural Causal Queueing Model (SCQM)—a form of structural causal models that automatically adapts to the data-generating process of queueing systems, finds causal relations, and supports comparative analytics. Numerical experiments show that the accuracy of SCQM is competitive with QT, even for examples where analytical queueing solutions are available. Methodology: We employ structural causal modeling methodology that uses queueing-relevant features to develop a simulator that replicates the system’s data-generating process without requiring prior knowledge of its dynamics. We apply Machine Learning models for identifying the parent sets and causal relations. We then provide intervention analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. Managerial implications: We use queueing knowledge to develop an accurate self-adapting data-driven performance evaluator for congested systems that requires no prior knowledge of the system dynamics. Using this method, companies can perform comparative analytics of interventions for queueing systems that may not be analytically solvable. History: This paper was selected as part of the 1RR initiative between M&SOM and the MSOM Society. This paper was part of the 2024 MSOM Service Operations Service Management Special Interest Group Conference. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/msom.2024.1515 .

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.236 · 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