Published October 18, 2026 | Version 1.0
Preprint Open

Allocation and Coordination under Scarce Resources: Admissible Routing, Prices, Review Sets, and Containment for Gated Work

Authors/Creators

  • 1. Independent Researcher

Description

Earlier papers in this series decide which executor, gate stack, or mechanism is admissible for one step of work. They do not decide how scarce capacity is shared when many classes of work compete for it: a principal's attention, verification memory, external review lineages, rate-limited seats, and calendar time. This paper studies that allocation problem. We allocate only among options whose safety premises remain valid under the allocation actually chosen. We keep three distinctions: fluid feasibility versus executable schedules, marginal prices versus finite policy changes, and measured review value versus worst-case review value. In a fluid linear model, the feasible and optimal allocations do not depend on the executor's error law when bounds decide admissibility and the resource use, costs, demands, and capacities are law-independent or replaced by common uniform bounds. Feasibility has an exact certificate by nonnegative resource prices; subset cuts are exact for single-resource pools but insufficient for general resource bundles. Shadow prices value the principal's minutes, but a new option strictly lowers the optimum exactly when no old optimal dual prices it out, so a negative reduced cost at one dual is not enough. Choosing optional principal reviews is a knapsack. Review value under a fixed fault law is submodular; worst-case review value need not be, and a reviewer can have zero guaranteed value alone and positive guaranteed value in a coalition. Verifying an implementation does not identify the intended specification. Interface contracts bound severity: parallel escape routes add, and serial stages multiply only through conditional ceilings. With optional participation, achievable throughput does not fall as workers are added. Substituting a mechanization for scarce work needs feasibility in every resource and every period. Queueing models, a scheduling formulation of verification compute, and MaxWeight stability complete the picture, each under its stated assumptions. Many results are classical; we state the conditions under which they apply to gated work. These are mathematical models, not measurements.

Notes

Part VII of the gated-computation series. Code (finite-model check script): https://github.com/ivmat/gated-computation-sim

Files

paper_allocation.pdf

Files (445.7 kB)

Name Size
md5:9298164d9449131b4a8ed24d40c626f6
445.7 kB Preview Download

Additional details

Cites
Preprint: 10.5281/zenodo.20820968 (DOI)
Preprint: 10.5281/zenodo.20837102 (DOI)
Preprint: 10.5281/zenodo.21456783 (DOI)
Preprint: 10.5281/zenodo.23119225 (DOI)
Preprint: 10.5281/zenodo.23293740 (DOI)
Preprint: 10.5281/zenodo.23324667 (DOI)
Is supplemented by
Software: https://github.com/ivmat/gated-computation-sim (URL)

References

  • I. Matijašević. A Fault-Tolerance Threshold for Gated Agentic Computation. 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20820968.
  • I. Matijašević. Generated Gates Inherit Their Generator's Blind Spots. 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20837102.
  • I. Matijašević. Escape, Cost, and Correlation at the Verification Floor of Gated Agentic Computation. 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21456783.
  • I. Matijašević. Progressive Semantic Mechanization. 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23119225.
  • I. Matijašević. Beyond Constant Fault Rates: Reliability Bounds for Gated Computation and Semantic Mechanization. Preprint, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23293740.
  • I. Matijašević. Risk-Gated Mechanization: Severity, Verifiability, and Decisions Invariant to the Executor's Error Law. Preprint, 2026. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23324667.
  • A. Aggoun and N. Beldiceanu. Extending CHIP in order to solve complex scheduling and placement problems. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 17(7):57–73, 1993.
  • M. Akgül. A note on shadow prices in linear programming. Journal of the Operational Research Society 35(5):425–431, 1984.
  • J. V. Alves, D. Leitão, S. Jesus, M. O. P. Sampaio, J. Liébana, P. Saleiro, M. A. T. Figueiredo, and P. Bizarro. Cost-sensitive learning to defer to multiple experts with workload constraints. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.06906.
  • G. M. Amdahl. Validity of the single processor approach to achieving large scale computing capabilities. AFIPS Spring Joint Computer Conference, pp. 483–485, 1967.
  • D. C. Aucamp and D. I. Steinberg. The computation of shadow prices in linear programming. Journal of the Operational Research Society 33(6):557–565, 1982.
  • N. T. J. Bailey. On queueing processes with bulk service. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 16(1):80–87, 1954.
  • S. Banach. Sur les opérations dans les ensembles abstraits et leur application aux équations intégrales. Fundamenta Mathematicae 3:133–181, 1922.
  • P. Baptiste, C. Le Pape, and W. Nuijten. Constraint-Based Scheduling. Kluwer, 2001.
  • A. Ben-Tal and A. Nemirovski. Robust solutions of uncertain linear programs. Operations Research Letters 25(1):1–13, 1999.
  • D. Bertsimas and J. N. Tsitsiklis. Introduction to Linear Optimization. Athena Scientific, 1997.
  • B. W. Boehm. Verifying and validating software requirements and design specifications. IEEE Software 1(1):75–88, 1984.
  • S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe. Convex Optimization. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
  • C. Buyukkoc, P. Varaiya, and J. Walrand. The cμ rule revisited. Advances in Applied Probability 17(1):237–238, 1985.
  • J. P. Buzen. Fundamental operational laws of computer system performance. Acta Informatica 7(2):167–182, 1976.
  • A. Charnes and W. W. Cooper. Chance-constrained programming. Management Science 6(1):73–79, 1959.
  • L. Chen, M. Zaharia, and J. Zou. FrugalGPT: how to use large language models while reducing cost and improving performance. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.05176.
  • D. R. Cox and W. L. Smith. Queues. Methuen, 1961.
  • G. B. Dantzig. Discrete-variable extremum problems. Operations Research 5(2):266–288, 1957.
  • P. J. Denning and J. P. Buzen. The operational analysis of queueing network models. ACM Computing Surveys 10(3):225–261, 1978.
  • D. E. Eckhardt and L. D. Lee. A theoretical basis for the analysis of multiversion software subject to coincident errors. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-11(12):1511–1517, 1985.
  • J. D. Esary and F. Proschan. Coherent structures of non-identical components. Technometrics 5(2):191–209, 1963.
  • J. Farkas. Theorie der einfachen Ungleichungen. Journal für die reine und angewandte Mathematik 124:1–27, 1902.
  • U. Feige. A threshold of ln n for approximating set cover. Journal of the ACM 45(4):634–652, 1998.
  • L. R. Ford and D. R. Fulkerson. Maximal flow through a network. Canadian Journal of Mathematics 8:399–404, 1956.
  • V. Goel and I. E. Grossmann. A class of stochastic programs with decision dependent uncertainty. Mathematical Programming 108:355–394, 2006.
  • T. Gal. Shadow prices and sensitivity analysis in linear programming under degeneracy. OR Spektrum 8(2):59–71, 1986.
  • D. Gale. A theorem on flows in networks. Pacific Journal of Mathematics 7(2):1073–1082, 1957.
  • L. Georgiadis, M. J. Neely, and L. Tassiulas. Resource allocation and cross-layer control in wireless networks. Foundations and Trends in Networking 1(1):1–144, 2006.
  • C. Griffin, L. Thomson, B. Shlegeris, and A. Abate. Games for AI control: models of safety evaluations of AI deployment protocols. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.07985.
  • R. Greenblatt, B. Shlegeris, K. Sachan, and F. Roger. AI control: improving safety despite intentional subversion. 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.06942.
  • N. J. Gunther. Guerrilla Capacity Planning. Springer, 2007.
  • N. J. Gunther. A general theory of computational scalability based on rational functions. 2008. https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1431.
  • P. Hall. On representatives of subsets. Journal of the London Mathematical Society 10:26–30, 1935.
  • M. Harchol-Balter. Performance Modeling and Design of Computer Systems: Queueing Theory in Action. Cambridge University Press, 2013.
  • M. Hiller, A. Jhumka, and N. Suri. An approach for analysing the propagation of data errors in software. Proceedings of the International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks, pp. 161–170, 2001.
  • M. Hiller, A. Jhumka, and N. Suri. EPIC: profiling the propagation and effect of data errors in software. IEEE Transactions on Computers 53(5):512–530, 2004.
  • M. Iri. On an extension of the maximum-flow minimum-cut theorem to multicommodity flows. Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan 13(3):129–135, 1971.
  • B. Jansen, J. J. de Jong, C. Roos, and T. Terlaky. Sensitivity analysis in linear programming: just be careful! European Journal of Operational Research 101(1):15–28, 1997.
  • E. Kaufmann, O. Cappé, and A. Garivier. On the complexity of best-arm identification in multi-armed bandit models. Journal of Machine Learning Research 17:1–42, 2016.
  • H. Kellerer, U. Pferschy, and D. Pisinger. Knapsack Problems. Springer, 2004.
  • J. F. C. Kingman. The single server queue in heavy traffic. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 57(4):902–904, 1961.
  • J. F. C. Kingman. On queues in heavy traffic. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 24(2):383–392, 1962.
  • T. C. Koopmans. Identification problems in economic model construction. Econometrica 17(2):125–144, 1949.
  • A. Krause, H. B. McMahan, C. Guestrin, and A. Gupta. Robust submodular observation selection. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9:2761–2801, 2008.
  • J. H. Lala and R. E. Harper. Architectural principles for safety-critical real-time applications. Proceedings of the IEEE 82(1):25–40, 1994.
  • L. Le Cam. Convergence of estimates under dimensionality restrictions. Annals of Statistics 1(1):38–53, 1973.
  • G. F. Lindsay and A. B. Bishop. Allocation of screening inspection effort—a dynamic-programming approach. Management Science 10(2):342–352, 1964.
  • R. Lin and J. Zhang. When should AI review precede human approval of agent-generated code? 2026, version 2; version 1 was titled "When to screen, when to bypass: LLM-judges in resource-scarce AI-human workflow". https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.13870.
  • B. Littlewood and D. R. Miller. Conceptual modeling of coincident failures in multiversion software. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 15(12):1596–1614, 1989.
  • Center for Chemical Process Safety. Layer of Protection Analysis: Simplified Process Risk Assessment. American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2001.
  • J. K. Lenstra, D. B. Shmoys, and É. Tardos. Approximation algorithms for scheduling unrelated parallel machines. Mathematical Programming 46:259–271, 1990.
  • H. Luss. Operations research and capacity expansion problems: a survey. Operations Research 30(5):907–947, 1982.
  • T. Lykouris and W. Weng. Learning to defer in congested systems: the AI-human interplay. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.12237.
  • D. Madras, T. Pitassi, and R. Zemel. Predict responsibly: improving fairness and accuracy by learning to defer. 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.06664.
  • S. S. Mandroli, A. K. Shrivastava, and Y. Ding. A survey of inspection strategy and sensor distribution studies in discrete-part manufacturing processes. IIE Transactions 38(4):309–328, 2006.
  • H. D. Mills. Marginal values of matrix games and linear programs. In H. W. Kuhn and A. W. Tucker (eds.), Linear Inequalities and Related Systems, Annals of Mathematics Studies 38, pp. 183–194. Princeton University Press, 1956.
  • H. Mozannar and D. Sontag. Consistent estimators for learning to defer to an expert. 2020. https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.01862.
  • M. J. Neely. Stochastic Network Optimization with Application to Communication and Queueing Systems. Morgan & Claypool, 2010.
  • O. Nohadani and K. Sharma. Optimization under decision-dependent uncertainty. SIAM Journal on Optimization 28(2):1773–1795, 2018.
  • G. L. Nemhauser, L. A. Wolsey, and M. L. Fisher. An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions—I. Mathematical Programming 14(1):265–294, 1978.
  • M. F. Neuts. A general class of bulk queues with Poisson input. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 38(3):759–770, 1967.
  • H. Ohtera and S. Yamada. Optimal allocation and control problems for software-testing resources. IEEE Transactions on Reliability 39(2):171–176, 1990.
  • N. Okati, A. De, and M. Gomez-Rodriguez. Differentiable learning under triage. 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.08902.
  • K. Onaga and O. Kakusho. On feasibility conditions of multicommodity flows in networks. IEEE Transactions on Circuit Theory 18(4):425–429, 1971.
  • I. Ong, A. Almahairi, V. Wu, W.-L. Chiang, T. Wu, J. E. Gonzalez, M. W. Kadous, and I. Stoica. RouteLLM: learning to route LLMs with preference data. 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18665.
  • J. B. Orlin, A. S. Schulz, and R. Udwani. Robust monotone submodular function maximization. Mathematical Programming 172(1–2):505–537, 2018.
  • A. A. B. Pritsker, L. J. Watters, and P. M. Wolfe. Multiproject scheduling with limited resources: a zero-one programming approach. Management Science 16(1):93–108, 1969.
  • T. Raz. A survey of models for allocating inspection effort in multistage production systems. Journal of Quality Technology 18(4):239–247, 1986.
  • A. L. Soyster. Convex programming with set-inclusive constraints and applications to inexact linear programming. Operations Research 21(5):1154–1157, 1973.
  • L. Tassiulas and A. Ephremides. Stability properties of constrained queueing systems and scheduling policies for maximum throughput in multihop radio networks. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 37(12):1936–1948, 1992.
  • A. C. Williams. Marginal values in linear programming. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 11(1):82–94, 1963.