Papers › Redesigning Service Level Agreements: Equity and Efficiency in City Government Operations
Redesigning Service Level Agreements: Equity and Efficiency in City Government Operations
Zhi Liu, Nikhil Garg
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
We study how government should allocate resources (e.g., maintenance of public infrastructure) over time, efficiently and equitably -- when these desiderata may conflict. In particular, we consider the design of Service Level Agreements (SLAs) in city government operations: promises that incidents such as potholes and fallen trees will be responded to within a certain time. We model the problem of designing a set of SLAs as an optimization problem with equity and efficiency objectives under a queueing framework; the city has two decision levers: how to allocate response budgets to different neighborhoods, and how to schedule responses to individual incidents. We first theoretically analyze a stylized model, deriving when the equity-efficiency trade-off is substantial in absolute terms and centralizing response efforts leads to relatively smaller improvements over optimal decentralized operations. We then develop a simulation-optimization framework to design and analyze policies in practice. Applying our framework to data from NYC, we find: (a) in practice, despite large potential trade-offs, equity improvements are possible with relatively small decreases in efficiency; (b) there exist policies that are both more efficient and equitable than status quo inspections; (c) the gain from centralization is {relatively small compared to the potential efficiency-equity tradeoff}. Our results provide widely applicable predictions about the scale of the equity-efficiency trade-off in similar resource allocation settings, and our data-driven simulation-optimization framework enables specific policy recommendations in government operations. Our code is available at https://github.com/nikhgarg/sla_design. Our theoretical statements have been formalized in Lean, available at https://github.com/nikhgarg/AppliedModelingLib/blob/main/papers/LG24ServiceLevelAgreements/.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2410.14825")
Code
Syntology Ran 2 of 6 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 4 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 2 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 6 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
6 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 4 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 6 of the 6 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from zhiliu724/sla_design. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
f129ad5446012814 · report
e5fb2f88e98bf688 · report
2e37b0a161f3fb27 · report
7960d03afb106604 · report
2c32c68f36b1b37f · report
04ef0dc865b25912 · report
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections