Emission Factor Recommendation for Life Cycle Assessments with Generative AI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurately quantifying greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is crucial for organizations to measure and mitigate their environmental impact. Life cycle assessment (LCA) estimates the environmental impacts throughout a product's entire lifecycle, from raw material extraction to end-of-life. Measuring the emissions outside a product owner's control is challenging, and practitioners rely on emission factors (EFs)─estimations of GHG emissions per unit of activity─to model and estimate indirect impacts. However, the current practice of manually selecting appropriate EFs from databases is time-consuming and error-prone and requires expertise. We present an AI-assisted method leveraging natural language processing and machine learning to automatically recommend EFs with human-interpretable justifications. Our algorithm can assist experts by providing a ranked list of EFs or operating in a fully automated manner, where the top recommendation is selected as final. Benchmarks across multiple real-world data sets show our method recommends the correct EF with an average precision of 86.9% in the fully automated case and shows the correct EF in the top 10 recommendations with an average precision of 93.1%. By streamlining EF selection, our approach enables scalable and accurate quantification of GHG emissions, supporting organizations' sustainability initiatives and progress toward net-zero emissions targets across industries.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".