Abstract
Policy models often assume that the relationship between a policy instrument and its outcome remains stable across institutional conditions. In adaptive socio-technical systems this assumption may fail: regulatory change can alter incentives, agents can respond strategically, and the mapping from policy variables to aggregate outcomes can change. This paper studies such regime change as a transfer-learning problem in adaptive multi-agent systems. A policy regime is represented as a learning problem induced by an observable input distribution and a target function mapping policy variables to outcomes. We compare a blank-slate learner that searches a flexible hypothesis class in the new regime with a transfer learner whose effective hypothesis class is restricted by structural knowledge from the previous regime. Transfer is beneficial when this restriction preserves the new target function while reducing effective complexity; it is harmful when the restriction excludes the new target and creates misspecification. A stylized emissions-regulation experimental environment and a dynamic ABM robustness experiment support the claim. When the target regime preserves an affine monotone tax-emissions relation, transfer improves empirical small-sample performance. When the target regime introduces a threshold break, the same transferred structure produces negative transfer: held-out error remains high, online prediction generates more mistakes, and repeated online streams show larger cumulative and final-window error under misspecification. The contribution is methodological: previous regulatory experience should be reused when it captures stable structural invariants, but treated cautiously when policy change alters the policy-outcome relationship.
Explore similar work
Jun 15, 2026cs.MA
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.
Roberto Garrone
Jun 15, 2026cs.MA
Policy-oriented agent-based models are increasingly used to study regulatory interventions in complex adaptive socio-technical systems. Recent adaptive ABM frameworks distinguish between static and adaptive agents, fixed and adaptive policies, and alternative controller designs. However, most diagnostic workflows remain ex post: trajectories are analysed after simulation, but the resulting evidence is not systematically fed back into the policy controller. This paper proposes a lightweight machine-coached policy-revision layer for adaptive agent-based regulation. The layer represents policy decisions as defeasible rules with explicit conflicts and priorities, generates explanations for controller actions, and allows diagnostic failures to be translated into rule additions, removals, or priority changes. The contribution is not a new optimal controller and does not claim formal guarantees for unrestricted machine coaching. Instead, it provides a simulation-compatible operationalization of controller-level contestability: policy decisions can be explained, challenged, revised, and re-evaluated in held-out simulation runs. A stylized emissions-regulation ABM is used as the experimental component. A controlled simulation experiment focuses on an over-conservatism failure in the VPVA regime. The predefined coaching template adds a relaxation rule to the symbolic controller, reducing over-conservatism recurrence under held-out seeds while preserving violation, overshoot, and volatility guardrails. The paper argues that machine coaching is best understood as a controller-level extension of explainable adaptive ABM, complementary to causal, information-theoretic, and trajectory-based diagnostics.
Roberto Garrone
Aug 12, 2026cs.LG
Many reinforcement learning systems, from fleet management to traffic signal control, must serve an objective that changes dynamically after deployment, and retraining a policy for each new objective is prohibitively expensive. For a single agent, this problem is well understood: successor features with generalized policy improvement, together with their universal extension, recombine a library of learned policies into a policy for any new objective, with a guarantee that the result is never worse than any policy in the library. However, multi-agent transfer has received far less attention, and the common practice of letting each agent recombine its own library independently inherits the recipe but not the guarantee. We prove that this independent composition can produce joint behavior strictly worse than every policy in the library, because recombining teammates changes the environment each agent faces and invalidates the values it relies on, a failure with no single-agent counterpart. We further show that the only unconditionally safe fixed rule is synchronized composition, which moves the whole team to one jointly trained policy but cannot serve objectives that assign different goals to different agents. To attain safety and flexibility at once, we propose MA-USFA, a hierarchical method with two layers: a lower layer of universal successor feature approximators that predicts each agent's successor features while conditioned on its teammates' objectives, and an upper composer that selects, across agents, which library entry each agent should follow and supplies the cross-agent correction a per-agent value cannot represent. Trained once over the distribution of objectives, it is applied at deployment with no per-task adaptation.
Zijian Zhao, Sen Li