When Regulation Has Memory: Hysteresis and Control Burden in Artificial Agency

Adaptive agents do not always regulate under the same timing conditions. Sometimes stabilization can begin before a disturbance has fully entered the internal state; at other times the agent can only recover after disruption has taken hold. A simple expectation is that an agent moving between these conditions should behave like a weighted average of the two fixed cases: the more time spent in reactive recovery, the greater the regulatory burden. This paper shows that expectation can fail. In a simulated adaptive agent with retained state history, at an operating point where sustained reactive control is more costly than sustained anticipatory control, intermittent access to anticipatory control reduces the mean regulatory burden below the value predicted by a fixed-mode mixture. The effect appears under both periodic and stochastic switching schedules: losing anticipatory access does not simply dilute its benefit, and restoring it intermittently can reorganize the later regulatory burden. High-statistics runs (N = 1000 matched replicates per schedule) resolve a negative nonlinear switching penalty across every tested schedule. The effect is small but consistent: about half a percent of the mean gain, with 63-68% of replicates falling below zero. Late-window diagnostics reveal no unresolved upward accumulation of regulatory burden. The result identifies a design-relevant timing principle. In history-dependent adaptive systems, the burden of remaining organized is not set only by how much time an agent spends in each mode; the order in which disturbance and recovery enter the state can change the subsequent burden. Intermittent anticipatory control may therefore act less like a partial failure of regulation than like a mechanism for reducing the long-term burden of recovery.

Adaptive regulation can itself perturb the state it is intended to stabilize. In replicated simulations of an adaptive agent, we compare external disturbance, persistent internally generated disturbance, and control-generated disturbance under regulation-first and disturbance-first ordering. Persistent internal disturbance produces the largest exposure and regulatory burden within the tested parameter grid. When positive controller updates generate an immediate disturbance cost, increasing that cost produces a nonmonotonic response: effective disturbance initially rises, variability across stochastic runs increases over an intermediate range, and corrective activity becomes strongly suppressed at higher costs. The results show how disturbance source and timing shape exposure and controller burden in this model. They motivate testing adaptive agents with distinct disturbance sources and assessing regulatory activity alongside exposure.

Agent-based models are widely used to evaluate policy interventions in complex socio-technical systems, yet many policy-oriented ABMs represent regulation as a fixed scenario parameter. This limits their ability to distinguish whether regulatory conclusions depend on agent adaptation, policy adaptation, or the interaction between both. Building on a previously proposed four-regime architecture, this paper contributes a controlled simulation benchmark rather than a new general framework. Using a single configurable emissions-regulation ABM, we compare constant policy/constant agents, constant policy/adaptive agents, adaptive policy/constant agents, and adaptive policy/adaptive agents under matched simulation conditions. We evaluate naive fixed policies, tracking-aware calibrated fixed policies, and three adaptive controllers: setpoint, safety-margin, and one-sided control. The benchmark recovers expected controller archetypes: setpoint control tracks the cap but produces frequent boundary crossings, safety-margin control reduces violations through conservatism, and one-sided control can limit violations but may ratchet toward over-conservatism when combined with adaptive agents. The contribution is methodological: scalar indicators, cap-relative symbolic diagnostics, trajectory motifs, and visual inspection jointly reveal how regulatory conclusions can differ even when average outcomes appear similar. Adaptive policy-oriented ABMs should therefore be evaluated through regime distinguishability, not only through average performance.