Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.23420

Systematic Bias in Green Patent Classification: Silent Green and False Green

Hamid Bekamiri·Jan Auernhammer·Milad Abbasiharofteh·Jesper Lindgaard Christensen
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Green-patent indicators based on Cooperative Patent Classification Y02 tags increasingly inform research, industrial policy, and climate-oriented investment, yet their construct validity has not been evaluated at corpus scale. We ask whether Y02 classification errors are random measurement noise or systematic, direction-specific bias. We introduce an Error-as-Signal framework in which disagreement between an administrative label and an independent model is treated as evidence of potential measurement error. Screening 9,075,421 USPTO granted patents from 1962-2024 with a fine-tuned domain model identifies 517,772 disagreements. Two independent open-weight large language models then assess whether each flagged invention has a direct climate-mitigation or adaptation function. Cross-model consensus identifies 180,384 administrative Type I errors (False Green) and 29,465 Type II errors (Silent Green). Correcting these errors reduces the measured green-patent population by 25.5%, from 592,387 to 441,468 patents. Misclassification is systematic rather than random. Atypicality predicts Silent Green in an inverted-U pattern, while reflection complexity independently increases under-recognition: controlling for atypicality and filing year, a one-standard-deviation increase is associated with 1.61 times the odds of Silent Green. Structural complexity has the opposite association. Among consensus-attributed errors, the same increase in reflection complexity is associated with 2.45 times the odds that an error is Silent Green rather than False Green. Event tests show no discrete rise in misclassification when green classification became more salient and only limited evidence of increased explicit green framing after the 2013 CPC launch. The evidence is more consistent with bounded classification capacity than with applicant gaming.

Explore related subjects

econ.EM

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hamid Bekamiri, Jan Auernhammer, Milad Abbasiharofteh, Jesper Lindgaard Christensen. 2026-08-25. Systematic Bias in Green Patent Classification: Silent Green and False Green. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.23420

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Evidence Aggregation for Treatment Choice

Consider a planner who has limited knowledge of the policy's causal impact on a certain local population of interest due to a lack of data, but does have access to the publicized intervention studies performed for similar policies on different populations. How should the planner make use of and aggregate this existing evidence to make her policy decision? Following Manski (2020; Towards Credible Patient-Centered Meta-Analysis, \textit{Epidemiology}), we formulate the planner's problem as a statistical decision problem with a social welfare objective, and solve for an optimal aggregation rule under the minimax-regret criterion. We investigate the analytical properties, computational feasibility, and welfare regret performance of this rule. We apply the minimax regret decision rule to decide whether to enact an active labor market policy based on 14 randomized control trial studies.

econ.EM↗
arXiv2026

Beta-Sorted Portfolios

Beta-sorted portfolios---portfolios comprised of assets with similar covariation with selected risk factors---are a popular tool in empirical finance to analyze models of (conditional) expected returns. Despite their widespread use, little is known of their econometric properties in contrast to comparable procedures such as two-pass regressions. We formally investigate the properties of beta-sorted portfolio returns by casting the procedure as a two-step nonparametric estimator with a nonparametric first step and a beta-adaptive portfolio construction. Our framework rationalizes the well-known estimation algorithm with precise economic and statistical assumptions on the general data-generating process. We provide conditions which ensure valid estimation and inference allowing for a range of hypotheses of interest in financial applications. We show that the rate of convergence of the estimator changes depending on the value of beta. We demonstrate that valid inference depends critically on the object of interest and discuss drawbacks of the widely used Fama-MacBeth variance estimator. To address these limitations, we propose a new variance estimator. We demonstrate the usefulness of our theoretical results in two empirical applications, including one in which we introduce a novel risk factor that captures the business credit cycle and show that it predicts both the cross-sectional and time-series behavior of U.S. stock returns.

econ.EM↗
arXiv2026

Difference-in-Differences with Unpoolable Data

Difference-in-differences (DID) is commonly used to estimate treatment effects but is infeasible in settings where data are unpoolable due to privacy concerns or legal restrictions on data sharing, particularly across jurisdictions. In this study, we identify and relax the assumption of data poolability in DID estimation. We propose an innovative approach to estimate DID with unpoolable data (UN-DID) which can accommodate covariates, multiple groups, and staggered adoption. Through analytical proofs and Monte Carlo simulations, we show that UN-DID and conventional DID estimates of the average treatment effect and standard errors are equal and unbiased in settings without covariates. With covariates, both methods produce estimates that are unbiased, equivalent, and converge to the true value. The estimates differ slightly but the statistical inference and substantive conclusions remain the same. Two empirical examples with real-world data further underscore UN-DID's utility. The UN-DID method allows the estimation of cross-jurisdictional treatment effects with unpoolable data, enabling better counterfactuals to be used and new research questions to be answered.

econ.EM↗