Balancing Morality and Economics: Population Games with Herding and Inertia
arXiv:2604.02030v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The adoption of clean technologies (CTs) plays an important role in reducing carbon dioxide (CO$_2$) emissions. We study CT adoption in a large population of consumers with heterogeneous behavioral tendencies. We model the interaction among the agents as a multi-type mean-field game in which the agents choose between clean and polluting technology based products and may either behave as rationals (trading off price and moral incentives), herding agents (just follow the majority), or lethargic agents exhibiting inertia toward adopting the new technologies. We characterize equilibrium CT adoption levels using the recently introduced notion of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-Rational Nash Equilibrium ($\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-RNE) and its multi-type extens
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:The adoption of clean technologies (CTs) plays an important role in reducing carbon dioxide (CO$_2$) emissions. We study CT adoption in a large population of consumers with heterogeneous behavioral tendencies. We model the interaction among the agents as a multi-type mean-field game in which the agents choose between clean and polluting technology based products and may either behave as rationals (trading off price and moral incentives), herding agents (just follow the majority), or lethargic agents exhibiting inertia toward adopting the new technologies. We characterize equilibrium CT adoption levels using the recently introduced notion of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-Rational Nash Equilibrium ($\boldsymbol{\alpha}$-RNE) and its multi-type extension. We then identify a stable subset using the limits of a stochastic turn-by-turn behavioral dynamics. Our results highlight the role of population composition in determining CT adoption. In particular, widespread adoption requires either a sufficiently small price disadvantage for CTs or the presence of a sufficiently large herding population that can be influenced through social awareness programs. Surprisingly, we could prove that environmental damages do not provide sufficient incentives to increase CT adoption.
Subjects:
Optimization and Control (math.OC); Computer Science and Game Theory (cs.GT)
Cite as: arXiv:2604.02030 [math.OC]
(or arXiv:2604.02030v1 [math.OC] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.02030
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Raghupati Vyas [view email] [v1] Thu, 2 Apr 2026 13:37:03 UTC (144 KB)
Sign in to highlight and annotate this article
Conversation starters
Daily AI Digest
Get the top 5 AI stories delivered to your inbox every morning.
More about
modelannounceproduct
With hf cli, how do I resume an interrupted model download?
I have a slow internet and the download of a large file was interrupted 30GB in! I download using the ‘hf’ CLI command, like this: hf download unsloth/gemma-4-31B-it-GGUF gemma-4-31B-it-UD-Q8_K_XL.gguf When I ran it again, it started over instead of resuming, to my horror. How do I avoid redownloading a partial model next time? I don’t see a resume option in hf download –help 1 post - 1 participant Read full topic
Knowledge Map
Connected Articles — Knowledge Graph
This article is connected to other articles through shared AI topics and tags.
More in Research Papers
Label-free pathological subtyping of non-small cell lung cancer using deep classification and virtual immunohistochemical staining
npj Digital Medicine, Published online: 03 April 2026; doi:10.1038/s41746-026-02557-x Label-free pathological subtyping of non-small cell lung cancer using deep classification and virtual immunohistochemical staining
First time NeurIPS. How different is it from low-ranked conferences? [D]
I'm a PhD student and already published papers in A/B ranked paper (10+). My field of work never allowed me to work on something really exciting and a core A* conference. But finally after years I think I have work worthy of some discussion at the top venue. I'm referring to papers (my field and top papers) from previous editions and I notice that there's a big difference on how people write, how they put their message on table and also it is too theoretical sometimes. Are there any golden rules people follow who frequently get into these conferences? Should I be soft while making novelty claims? Also those who moved from submitting to niche-conferences to NeurIPS/ICML/CVPR, did you change your approach? My field is imaging in healthcare. submitted by /u/ade17_in [link] [comments]
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion
No comments yet — be the first to share your thoughts!