A Low-Output Event as a Distinct Feasibility Question

Authors

  • Jack Phillips Author
  • Benjamin Marshall Author
  • Dylan Harrison Author

Abstract

The question concerns illustrative below-450-MW event as linear probability. The secondary ordinary least squares analysis contains 9,568 observations and uses HC3 covariance. The coefficient on AT is 0.0334, with a 95 percent interval from 0.0314 to 0.0353. The below-450 event is a declared analytical boundary and not a reliability standard. Its linear probability coefficients are differences on a probability scale under the chosen controls. Joint feasibility in a real application could add requirements absent from this file. Accurate estimation of this one event would not establish those unobserved requirements or a validated selection policy. The estimates describe the released collection and its conditioning set. No new data collection, simulator experiment, or deployment-policy evaluation is claimed.

References

  1. S. Gao and W. Chen, “Efficient Feasibility Determination with Multiple Performance Measure Constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 113–122, 2017.
  2. S. Gao and W. Chen, “Feasibility Determination in Presence of Multiple Performance Measure Constraints,” Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, pp. 988–992, 2016.
  3. Pnar Tfekci, Heysem Kaya. Combined Cycle Power Plant. UCI Machine Learning Repository, 2014. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.24432/C5002N.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Rasmussen, Carl Edward, and Christopher K. I. Williams. Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning. MIT Press, 2006. https://gaussianprocess.org/gpml/.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

Downloads

Published

2026-09-03