A Retrospective Fit Gain That a Pre-Call Rule Cannot Use
Abstract
The question concerns retrospective duration conditioning as an information-timing sensitivity. The secondary ordinary least squares analysis contains 45,211 observations and uses HC3 covariance. The coefficient on log_duration is 0.1164, with a 95 percent interval from 0.1128 to 0.1199. Completed-call duration is explicitly retrospective. A fit gain after adding it should not be attributed to a pre-call policy that cannot observe it. Offline contextual learning and correlated beliefs motivate retaining this timing restriction. A prospective assessment would freeze features before the contact and evaluate subsequent outcomes; the current sensitivity deliberately does not claim that result. The estimates describe the released collection and its conditioning set. No new data collection, simulator experiment, or deployment-policy evaluation is claimed.
References
- F. Zhang, S. Gao, and Jie Song, “Offline Contextual Learning with Correlated Bayesian Beliefs,” Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering, pp. 2496–2500, 2024.
- S. Gao, C. Li, and J. Du, “Rate Analysis for Offline Simulation Online Application,” Proceedings of the 2019 Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 3468–3479, 2019.
- S. Moro, P. Rita, P. Cortez. Bank Marketing. UCI Machine Learning Repository, 2014. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.24432/C5K306.
- White, Halbert. “A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity.” Econometrica, vol. 48, no. 4, 1980, pp. 817–838. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912934.
- Cameron, A. Colin, and Douglas L. Miller. “A Practitioner’s Guide to Cluster-Robust Inference.” Journal of Human Resources, vol. 50, no. 2, 2015, pp. 317–372. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.2.317.
- Rasmussen, Carl Edward, and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, 2006. https://gaussianprocess.org/gpml/.
- Ankenman, Bruce, Barry L. Nelson, and Jeremy Staum. “Stochastic Kriging for Simulation Metamodeling.” Operations Research, vol. 58, no. 2, 2010, pp. 371–382. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1090.0754.
- Kim, Seong-Hee, and Barry L. Nelson. “A Fully Sequential Procedure for Indifference-Zone Selection in Simulation.” ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation, vol. 11, no. 3, 2001, pp. 251–273. https://doi.org/10.1145/502109.502111.
- Frazier, Peter I., Warren B. Powell, and Savas Dayanik. “A Knowledge-Gradient Policy for Sequential Information Collection.” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 47, no. 5, 2008, pp. 2410–2439. https://doi.org/10.1137/070693424.
- Bertsimas, Dimitris, and Melvyn Sim. “The Price of Robustness.” Operations Research, vol. 52, no. 1, 2004, pp. 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.1030.0065.