Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning and Human Social Factors in Climate Change Mitigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many complex real-world problems, such as climate change mitigation, are intertwined with human social factors. Climate change mitigation, a social dilemma made difficult by the inherent complexities of human behavior, has an impact at a global scale. We propose applying multi-agent reinforcement learning (MARL) in this setting to develop intelligent agents that can influence the social factors at play in climate change mitigation. There are ethical, practical, and technical challenges that must be addressed when deploying MARL in this way. In this paper, we present these challenges and outline an approach to address them. Understanding how intelligent agents can be used to impact human social factors is important to prevent their abuse and can be beneficial in furthering our knowledge of these complex problems as a whole. The challenges we present are not limited to our specific application but are applicable to broader MARL. Thus, developing MARL for social factors in climate change mitigation helps address general problems hindering MARL's applicability to other real-world problems while also motivating discussion on the social implications of MARL deployment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".