2003
DOI: 10.1017/s0021900200019598
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the structure of value functions for threshold policies in queueing models

Abstract: We study the multiserver queue with Poisson arrivals and identical independent servers with exponentially distributed service times. Customers arriving at the system are admitted or rejected according to a fixed threshold policy. Moreover, the system is subject to holding, waiting, and rejection costs. We give a closed-form expression for the average costs and the value function for this multiserver queue. The result will then be used in a single step of policy iteration in the model where a controller has to … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
31
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 4 publications
2
31
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Consequently, the time-average costs of assignment to the queueing system are just the summed time-average costs of the two M/M/1 queues with holding costs γ 1 and γ 2 respectively (and of fixed costs γ 1 + γ 3 ). For a M/M/1 queue we know (see [6]) that g = ρ 1−ρ h, with ρ = λ/µ the system load, λ the arrival rate, µ the service rate, and holding costs h. This explains the Eq. (22).…”
Section: Substitution Into Eq (20) Yieldsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Consequently, the time-average costs of assignment to the queueing system are just the summed time-average costs of the two M/M/1 queues with holding costs γ 1 and γ 2 respectively (and of fixed costs γ 1 + γ 3 ). For a M/M/1 queue we know (see [6]) that g = ρ 1−ρ h, with ρ = λ/µ the system load, λ the arrival rate, µ the service rate, and holding costs h. This explains the Eq. (22).…”
Section: Substitution Into Eq (20) Yieldsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Because the resulting policy will be too complicated to repeat the policy evaluation step, the algorithm stops here. In practice, for a suitably chosen approximation, the resulting policy is nearly optimal (see, e.g., Bhulai and Koole [2], Koole and Nain [13], Ott and Krishnan [17], and Sassen et al [20]). …”
Section: Scenario 1: a Call Center With No Waiting Roommentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In G (2) s there might be more than one group to which one can route. The initial policy routes the call according to fixed probabilities to the groups in G (2) s ; that is, it splits the overflow stream from G (1) s into fixed fractions over the groups in G (2) s . The call progresses through the hierarchy whenever it is routed to a group with no idle agents until it is served at one of the groups or it is blocked at G (N) s eventually.…”
Section: Initial Policymentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…That is, given any > 0, if we let [34] applied the rollout technique combined with neuro-dynamic programming [5] to a vehicle routing problem, Ott and Krishnan [30] and Kolarov and Hui [22] studied network routing problems, Bhulai and Koole [7] consider a multi-server queueing problem, and Koole and Nain [24] consider a two-class single-server queueing model under a preemptive priority rule. In particular, [7] and [24] obtained explicit form expressions for the value function of a fixed threshold policy, which plays the role of the heuristic base policy, and showed numerically that the rollout policy generated from the threshold policy behaves almost optimally.…”
Section: Theorem 41 Assume That Assumption 21 Holds Consider the Hmentioning
confidence: 99%