1998 Winter Simulation Conference. Proceedings (Cat. No.98CH36274)
DOI: 10.1109/wsc.1998.745044
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sensitivity of output performance measures to input distributions in queueing network modeling

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
2
0

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
1
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Then, it could be necessary to capture more than three moments, even though the lower order moments dominate in importance. Similar conclusion was drawn in (Gross & Juttijudata, 1997). …”
Section: Cell Dwell Time Distribution Completely Characterized By Itssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Then, it could be necessary to capture more than three moments, even though the lower order moments dominate in importance. Similar conclusion was drawn in (Gross & Juttijudata, 1997). …”
Section: Cell Dwell Time Distribution Completely Characterized By Itssupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Results using simulation to examine sensitivity of results to interarrival-time and service-time distributions [28] favored the performance of the internal-rule system over the external-rule system relative to the expected queue waiting time for all interarrival and service distributions investigated (gamma, lognormal, beta, and Pearson type V; with a variety of shapes). Numerically, networks with Erlang or phase-type service time distributions could be formulated as quasibirth-and-death processes with resultant matrix-geometric solutions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The inclination to simplify the input model (via use of classical distributions, statistical independence, and time homogeneity) is equally pervasive. Warnings against such simplification are easily found: Bratley, Fox, and Schrage (1987), Kelton et al (1990), Johnson (1987), and Wilson (1997); warnings are implicit in sensitivity analyses such as Gross and Juttijudata (1997), Gross and Masi (1998), and Reilly (1998).…”
Section: The Logical and Input Modelsmentioning
confidence: 99%