Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Greenhouse Gas Offset Credit Markets
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change is a major threat to the future of humanity and its impacts are being intensified by excess man-made greenhouse gas emissions. One method governments can employ to control these emissions is to provide firms with emission limits and penalize any excess emissions above the limit. Excess emissions may also be offset by firms who choose to invest in carbon reducing and capturing projects. These projects generate offset credits which can be submitted to a regulating agency to offset a firm's excess emissions or they can be traded with other firms. In this work, we characterize the finite-agent Nash equilibrium for offset credit markets. As computing Nash equilibria is an NP-hard problem, we utilize the modern reinforcement learning technique Nash-DQN to efficiently estimate the market's Nash equilibria. We demonstrate not only the validity of employing reinforcement learning methods applied to climate themed financial markets but also the significant financial savings emitting firms may achieve when abiding by the Nash equilibria through numerical experiments.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it