A Stability Label without Its Defining Target as a Predictor

Authors

  • Oliver Barnes Author
  • Stephen Roberts Author
  • Mark Wallace Author

Abstract

The question concerns simulation-label linear probability model without numeric-margin leakage. The secondary ordinary least squares analysis contains 10,000 observations and uses HC3 covariance. The coefficient on tau1 is 0.0404, with a 95 percent interval from 0.0376 to 0.0431. The label is defined by the numerical margin, so including that margin as a predictor would reveal the outcome rather than learn stability from inputs. Its exclusion makes the information task explicit. Joint constraints and constrained best-arm selection motivate a later action comparison, which would require a simulator or environment rather than this static label table alone. The estimates describe the released collection and its conditioning set. No new data collection, simulator experiment, or deployment-policy evaluation is claimed.

References

  1. L. Yang, S. Gao, C. Li, and Y. Wang, “Stochastically Constrained Best Arm Identification with Thompson Sampling,” Automatica, vol. 176, 112223, 2025.
  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. Vadim Arzamasov. Electrical Grid Stability Simulated Data . UCI Machine Learning Repository, 2018. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.24432/C5PG66.
  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

2025-09-15