atlas

Research map / Multi-agent systems and games / Human-AI and goal-conditioned

Coordination of Emergent Demand Changes via Value-Based Negotiation for Supply Chain Management (Student Abstract)

AAAI 2024 · Multi-agent systems and games › Human-AI and goal-conditioned · approach: Boundedly rational agent modeling · 2 citations (OpenAlex)

Read the paperCheck your idea against 108,967 papers

AI-extracted summary. Written by AI from the paper's full text. Numbers and claims can be wrong or missing context, so check the paper before you cite or build on it.

Proposes value-based automated negotiation between RL supply-chain agents (PPO-trained, value function used as negotiation utility) to handle emergent demand changes, avoiding inventory shortages.

Problem

Reinforcement learning for supply chain management assumes centralized hierarchical coordination and cannot adapt to unexpected demand changes through inter-agent negotiation.

Approach

Uses the RL agent's value function, via multiple internal simulations, as the utility function in an alternating-offers negotiation; negotiation is triggered when the gap between learned value and simulated value exceeds a threshold, and agents negotiate shipping plans with linear concession strategies.

Key results

Measured effects reported in the paper

What was changedWhereMeasuredEffect
Use value-based negotiation instead of Zero-Shot without retrainingPrePV-Nego vs Zero-Shot · Decrease(small), supplier (S) and customer (C)achievement rate: 0.73 -> 1.00; 0.97 -> 1.00Helped
Use value-based negotiation instead of Zero-Shot without retrainingPrePV-Nego vs Zero-Shot · Increase(small), supplier (S) and customer (C)achievement rate: 0.80 -> 1.00; 0.87 -> 1.00Helped
Use value-based negotiation instead of Zero-Shot without retrainingPrePV-Nego vs Zero-Shot · Increase(large), supplier (S) and customer (C)achievement rate: 0.63 -> 1.00; 0.43 -> 1.00Helped
Use value-based negotiation instead of Base-StockPrePV-Nego vs Base-Stock · Increase(small), supplier (S) and customer (C)achievement rate: 0.90 -> 1.00; 0.83 -> 1.00Helped
Use value-based negotiation instead of Base-StockPrePV-Nego vs Base-Stock · Increase(large), supplier (S) and customer (C)achievement rate: 0.80 -> 1.00; 0.67 -> 1.00Helped
Use value-based negotiation instead of Base-StockPrePV-Nego vs Base-Stock · Decrease(small), supplier (S) and customer (C)achievement rate: 1.00 -> 1.00; 1.00 -> 1.00No clear effect

Limitations

Experimental setup

Datasets: simulated four-layer serial supply chain with stochastic terminal customer demand

Benchmarks: custom supply chain simulation scenarios (Decrease small, Increase small, Increase large)

Metrics: achievement rate

Baselines: Zero-Shot Base-Stock Ideal

Builds on: proximal policy optimization alternating offers protocol

Closest papers by meaning

Writing a paper in this area? scime draft is a free LaTeX editor with AI included, real-time co-authors and a check of your references and venue rules before you submit. It also imports OpenAI Prism projects.

Open scime draft

Get the next scime Dispatch and a monthly field update

Free. We send a confirmation link first; every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Privacy