In the realm of dynamic priority queues, the efficacy of reallocation mechanisms plays a pivotal role in optimizing system performance. This study presents an experimental exploration of various dynamic reallocation strategies within the context of priority queuing. The research involves a simulated environment where entities exchange positions based on shifting priorities, mimicking the dynamism of real-world scenarios. Through rigorous experimentation, we analyze the impact of different reallocation mechanisms on queue efficiency, responsiveness, and fairness. Our findings contribute valuable insights to the design and optimization of priority queuing systems, offering practical guidance for implementing dynamic reallocation strategies in diverse applications.

Priority Queues, Dynamic Systems, Queue Efficiency

Afèche, P., & Mendelson, H. (2004). Pricing and priority auctions in queueing systems with a generalized delay cost structure. Management Science,50(7), 869–882.

Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost.Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,35(1), 124–140.

Baliga, S., & Ely, J. C. (2011). Mnemonomics: The sunk cost fallacy as a memory kludge.American Economic Journal: Microeconomics,3(4),35–67.

Barzel, Y. (1974). A theory of rationing by waiting.The Journal of Law and Economics,17(1), 73–95.

Bendoly, E., Croson, R., Goncalves, P., & Schultz, K. (2010). Bodies of knowledge for research in behavioral operations.Production andOperations Management,19(4), 434–452.

Chatterjee, K., & Samuelson, W. (1983). Bargaining under incomplete information.Operations Research,31(5), 835–851.

Eliaz, K., Offerman, T., & Schotter, A. (2008). Creating competition out of thin air: An experimental study of right‐to‐choose auctions.Gamesand Economic Behavior,62(2), 383–416.

Feng, J. (2008). Optimal mechanism for selling a set of commonly ranked objects.Marketing Science,27(3), 501–512.

Friedman, D., Pommerenke, K., Lukose, R., Milam, G., & Huberman, B. A. (2007). Searching for the sunk cost fallacy. Experimental Economics,10(1), 79–104.

Gershkov, A., & Schweinzer, P. (2010). When queueing is better than push and shove.International Journal of Game Theory,39(3), 409–430.

Glazer, A., & Hassin, R. (1986). Stable priority purchasing in queues.Operations Research Letters,4(6), 285–288.

Goeree, J. K., & Offerman, T. (2002). Efficiency in auctions with private and common values: An experimental study.American EconomicReview,92(3), 625–643.

Goeree, J. K., Plott, C. R., & Wooders, J. (2004). Bidders' choice auctions: Raising revenues through the right to choose.Journal of theEuropean Economic Association,2(2‐3), 504–515.

Hassin, R. (1995). Decentralized regulation of a queue.Management Science,41(1), 163–173.

Hassin, R., & Haviv, M. (2003).To queue or not to queue: Equilibrium behavior in queueing systems. Chicago, IL: Springer Science & BusinessMedia. http://www.math.tau.ac.il/~hassin/main.pdf.