cs.LGOct 26, 2026

Locked In: Multi-Objective RL for the AI Data Center Build-Out

Authors: Satyapragnya Kar, Rajarshi Das, PR Panigrahi

Organizations: New York University · AlphaInfra.ai, MQube Cognition · Envana Software Solutions

Abstract

AI data center build-out is a multi-trillion-dollar, multi-decade infrastructure program. Yet siting, power procurement, and cooling decisions are still made with static, single-point scoring tools. These tools are evaluated once, on day-zero numbers. This is a poor fit. A site's water, power, and carbon profile drifts substantially over the 10 to 20 year asset life. The governing decisions are also irreversible, and they bind capital and physical plant for years. We formalize long-horizon build-out as a tiered multi-objective Markov decision process. Strategic commitments are gated to discrete windows, incur switching costs, and energize only after source-dependent lead times. Operational dispatch is restricted to capacity that physically exists. We solve the problem with a preference-conditioned multi-objective agent that has a semi-Markov manager and worker hierarchy. The agent recovers a family of policies that a planner can steer across cost, carbon, water, and reliability at inference time. We validate long-horizon dynamics with a lightweight counterfactual rollout model. Across three commitment regimes (irreversible, reversible, and commit-once) on real site data, preference conditioning yields a confirmed, steerable trade-off on both objective pairs in every regime. Imposing lock-in produces a more evenly covered frontier and a far more consistent rate of anticipatory retrofit ahead of a binding water-stress constraint than a freely reversible formulation. Finally, a compact counterfactual dynamics model tracks slow-moving state well. It is measurably outperformed by simple persistence on the water-stress axis. We report this limitation rather than obscure it. We release the environment, agents, baselines, and evaluation harness. All of them are grounded in real interconnection-queue, water-stress, and grid-emissions data.

Explore similar work

Oct 15, 2026

Watts If? A Benchmark for Counterfactual Reasoning About the AI Data Center Buildout

An AI data center is committed years before it draws a watt: a few discrete choices (grid or on-site gas, evaporative or dry cooling, which county to file in) fix its capital, water draw, and carbon path, and LLMs are now asked to help screen them with no test of whether they track what each commitment rules out. We introduce DCBench-440, with two arms reported separately: 200 generative questions over STRIPS worlds for five US deal archetypes, with search-verified gold answers and no tested shortcut above 12% on any question type, and 240 multiple-choice questions grounded in quoted site records, emission equations, and stated scenarios. Across open-weight deployments, accuracy spans 12.5-71.5% (generative) and 58.3-92.5% (multiple choice). One skill fails everywhere: asked to list every action available at a decision gate, no model exceeds 4.0% exact match. The strongest list 72-85% of the actions that would change the project's state but omit most permitted actions that change nothing; with those excused, the best exact match is still 24%. Code, data, and other materials are available upon request.
Jul 3, 2026

Hierarchical Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Carbon-Aware AI Data Centers in Power Distribution Systems

Eco-friendly energy management for artificial intelligence data centers (AIDCs) is crucial because of the significant increase in energy consumption-induced carbon emissions from AIDCs resulting from the rapid expansion of AI applications. This paper proposes a hierarchical carbon-aware multi-agent reinforcement learning (CA-MARL) framework for robust and efficient operations of AIDCs under uncertainties while ensuring low-carbon operation of power distribution systems. The framework comprises a workload manager (WM) agent and multiple local AIDC agents trained using a multi-agent transformer method, corresponding to a global AIDC aggregator and a local AIDC operator, respectively. Leveraging AIDC operation data along with nodal carbon intensity (NCI) calculated from the carbon emission flow-integrated distribution system operator problem, the WM agent spatially allocates AI training and inference jobs among all AIDCs. Based on the jobs allocated from the WM agent and NCI information, each AIDC agent schedules economical and eco-friendly operations of the AIDC by performing the following tasks: i) temporal shifting of training jobs, ii) spatial allocation of training graphics processing unit (GPU) blocks and inference GPUs within the AIDC, and iii) control of the supply air temperature of the cooling system. The effectiveness of the proposed framework was assessed using an IEEE 33-node power distribution system.
Sep 8, 2026

AI for AI: Optimizing Additional Infrastructure Build-out to Power Artificial Intelligence Data Centers

The twenty-first century's transformative technology, artificial intelligence, is increasingly constrained by the twentieth century's transformative technology, the electricity grid. Rapid growth in electricity demand from data centers is leading to higher electricity prices, without a compensating supply-side response. We develop a framework linking data-center load growth, available generation capacity, and market-clearing prices to understand this phenomenon. We first analyze a deterministic model to show how differing estimates of demand and supply growth rates affect prices. We then model the expansion of new data centers and their associated electricity demand, together with build-outs of new electricity supply, as stochastic processes,resulting in probabilistic distributions of supply, demand, and prices rather than a single forecast. Finally, we formulate generation expansion as a stochastic control problem in which a revenue-maximizing investor dynamically chooses the intensity of supply-side investments. The analysis highlights a central challenge of the data-center build-out: even when rapid demand growth increases the need for new generation, the uncertainties related to load forecasts, development execution risks, and value cannibalization from overbuilding capacity may weaken incentives to invest at the pace required to keep electricity prices stable.