A 0–100 'sustainability score' that blends carbon intensity, utilisation and a hardware bonus is proposed to nudge researchers toward greener cluster usage, with a 12‑week randomized crossover trial on a university ML cluster planned to test its behavioural impact; results are pending.

Main Finding

The authors design a gamifiable composite sustainability score for compute-cluster users that combines average carbon intensity, resource utilisation, and a hardware “bonus” for using underutilised machines into a single 0–100 metric. They embed this score into three dashboard conditions (raw metrics, composite score, and a gamified forest visualization) and plan a 12‑week within-subjects study (≈35 researchers) to test whether gamified feedback changes attitudes and resource-usage behaviour.

Key Points

• Motivation: Numerical energy/carbon metrics alone are not action-guiding; multi‑dimensional sustainability (operational carbon, embodied carbon, utilisation) requires a balanced metric suitable for behavioural interventions.
• Composite score components:
  • Utilisation (Uscore): average of GPU, CPU, GPU‑mem, CPU‑mem utilisation (normalized 0–1; capped at 1 for over‑use).
  • Hardware bonus (Hbonus): incentive for using underutilised GPU types computed inversely from rolling 1‑week cluster utilisation.
  • Average Carbon Intensity score (ACIscore): compares actual job timing to a feasible optimal contiguous window (1 week or twice job duration) and maps between best and worst-case ACI.
• Default weights: wU = 0.4, wH = 0.4, wACI = 0.2 (sum = 1). Final score: Stotal = wU·Uscore + wH·Hbonus + wACI·ACIscore.
• Gamification: composite score mapped to an interactive forest (trees = pods; leaf colour = hardware bonus; ground/gradients = utilisation; weather = carbon intensity) to leverage intrinsic/extrinsic motivation and visual feedback.
• Study design: 12 weeks total; participants rotate through three dashboard conditions randomized in order, each shown for 3 weeks, plus 3 weeks of control; mixed methods — continuous behavioral logging and pre/post surveys, plus 10–15 qualitative interviews (reflexive thematic analysis).
• Measurement details: integration into Launcher (cluster web app) on OKD Kubernetes; GPU power measured via NVIDIA SMI; CPU power estimated via linear model to TDP; resource metrics sampled every 5 minutes; grid intensity from UK Carbon Intensity API.
• Open challenges acknowledged: defining “good” or useful computational work (including failed jobs), gaming the metric (under‑provisioning), fairness for users with high legitimate resource needs, and limits of CPU power estimation.

Data & Methods

• Setting: mid‑sized ML research cluster at University of Glasgow; ~35 active users.
• Intervention:
  • Conditions: (1) Raw metrics baseline (energy kWh, CO2e, average carbon intensity); (2) Composite sustainability score with breakdown; (3) Gamified forest interface visualizing the composite score and subcomponents.
  • Exposure schedule: randomized within-subject rotation; 3 weeks per dashboard + 3 weeks control (total 12 weeks).
• Measurements:
  • Operational carbon: real-time regional grid intensity × estimated/measured hardware power.
  • Power measurement: GPU via NVML/NVIDIA SMI; CPU via TDP-based linear model (noted accuracy limits at low utilisation).
  • Resource utilisation: CPU, GPU, memory measured at node-level every 5 minutes.
  • Hardware bonus: cluster-wide rolling 1‑week utilisation per GPU type.
  • ACI calculation: for each job, find contiguous block of timestamps (≥ job length, bounded by 1 week or 2× job duration) with min/max average carbon intensity; score linearly between optimal and worst-case.
• Evaluation data:
  • Behavioral logs: job submissions, allocations, utilisation, hardware selection, dashboard engagement.
  • Surveys: baseline and post-intervention on awareness, attitudes, perceived barriers, score interpretation.
  • Qualitative interviews: 10–15 semi-structured follow-ups analyzed with reflexive thematic analysis.
• Planned analyses: within-subject comparisons of behaviour across conditions (e.g., timing shifts, utilisation changes, hardware choices), attitude changes, and qualitative exploration of interpretation and barriers.

Implications for AI Economics

• Behavioral levers for compute externalities:
  • The paper operationalizes a low-cost, UI‑based intervention that can shift researcher behaviour (timing, resource provisioning, hardware selection) without changing pricing — a complement to price mechanisms (e.g., internal carbon price, chargeback).
  • Measuring behavioural elasticities (how much carbon/usage changes in response to score/gamification) would inform the effectiveness and cost-efficiency of non‑price interventions versus monetary incentives.
• Accounting for embodied vs operational carbon:
  • Explicitly rewarding use of underutilised (often older) hardware can reduce embodied carbon pressure from accelerating hardware replacement. AI economists should consider embodied emissions when designing incentives and allocation policies; treating only operational margins can bias procurement decisions.
• Productivity–emissions tradeoffs and welfare:
  • Interventions that encourage delaying jobs or increasing utilisation may affect researcher productivity (deadlines, iteration speed). Economic evaluation requires estimating the welfare tradeoff: reductions in emissions versus potential productivity loss or delayed output value.
  • Research contexts involve high uncertainty and exploratory work; metrics that penalize “low-value” or failed runs risk reducing socially valuable experimentation. Mechanism design must balance incentives with incentives for innovation.
• Risks of perverse incentives and gaming:
  • The score can be gamed (under‑requesting resources, artificially delaying jobs) or create inequities (users with time‑sensitive/high‑compute tasks disadvantaged). AI economists designing allocation or pricing policies should simulate and measure gaming responses and distributional impacts.
• Policy and institutional design opportunities:
  • Composite scores could be integrated into internal governance (soft quotas, dashboards, or tied to internal cost allocations) as a low-friction policy tool.
  • Such scores can inform procurement strategy (buying hardware that reduces total lifecycle emissions) and capacity planning by revealing which hardware is chronically underutilised.
• Research suggestions for AI economists:
  • Run randomized controlled trials to estimate causal impacts of gamified scores on carbon emissions, utilisation, and productivity.
  • Quantify rebound effects (e.g., does making compute “appear cheaper” via reuse incentives increase total job volume?), and net emissions.
  • Explore hybrid interventions combining UI feedback with price signals (e.g., dynamic internal pricing tied to ACI) and evaluate cost-effectiveness.
  • Model welfare effects of discouraging failed or exploratory jobs and design credit mechanisms (e.g., “exploration budgets”) to preserve research innovation.
  • Extend generalizability analysis: different grid mixes, cloud vs on‑premise, diverse user populations, and alternative CPU power measurement methods.
• Limitations to account for in economic analysis:
  • Measurement noise (CPU power model), local grid specifics (UK API used), and contextual constraints (deadlines, collaboration norms) limit external validity. Weighting of score components is subjective and may need calibration to local incentives and social objectives.

Summary recommendation: The proposed composite score and gamified feedback are promising, low-friction policy tools to influence researcher behaviour on clusters. For AI economics, the next step is rigorous causal evaluation of emissions reductions, productivity impacts, gaming behavior, and cost-effectiveness relative to pricing or allocation policies — with careful attention to embodied carbon, equity, and preserving exploratory research.