Sharing is caring: data sharing in multi-agent supply chains
Authors: Wan Wang, Haiyan Wang, Adam Sobey
Organizations: School of Transportation and Logistics Engineering, Wuhan University of Technology, No.1178 Heping Avenue Wuchang District, Wuhan, 430063, Hubei, China · Maritime Engineering, University of Southampton, Burgess Rd, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK · Sustainability Mission, The Alan Turing Institute, The British Library, London, NW1 2DB, UK
Modern supply networks are complex interconnected systems. Multi-agent models are increasingly explored to optimise their performance. Most research assumes agents will have full observability of the system by having a single policy represent the agents, which seems unrealistic as this requires companies to share their data. The alternative is to develop a Hidden-Markov Process with separate policies, making the problem challenging to solve. In this paper, we propose a multi-agent system where the factory agent can share information downstream, increasing the observability of the environment. It can choose to share no information, lie, tell the truth or combine these in a mixed strategy. The results show that data sharing can boost the performance, especially when combined with a cooperative reward shaping. In the high demand scenario there is limited ability to change the strategy and therefore no data sharing approach benefits both agents. However, lying benefits the factory enough for an overall system improvement, although only by a relatively small amount compared to the overall reward. In the low demand scenario, the most successful data sharing is telling the truth which benefits all actors significantly.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Flow of data sharing through the supply chain environment.
Hyperparameters sets
Values
max_seq_len
20
conv_activation
relu
fcnet_activation
tanh
fcnet_hiddens
[256,256]
Discount factor (gamma)
0.99
Learning rate (lr)
0.001
Table 1: Optimal hyperparameter settings for heterogeneous SAC.
Notation
Explanation
Retailer (i=1)
Factory (i=2)
Spi
Unit Sales Price
6
6
Qi
Order Quantity
[0,20]
[0,20]
ci
Unit Ordering Cost
Sp2
0.2
Hci
Unit Inventory Holding Cost
0.2
0.2
Ii
Initial Inventory Level
10
10
Ci
Inventory Capacity
19
59
Table 2: Environment parameters in the two-echelon supply chain.
Reward
NoComms
Communication
Truth
Lying
Mixed
Factory
1695.74
1,693.40
1710.62
1671.95
Retailer
-373.07
-376.01
-375.94
-361.12
Global
1,322.67
1,317.39
1,334.69
1310.82
Table 3: Agent baseline rewards in the high demand environment for the four forms of communication under simulated ten times. Higher scores indicate superior agent performance.
Reward
NoComms
Communication
Truth
Lying
Mixed
Factory
1653.04
1635.50
1718.62
1650.64
Retailer
-390.74
-440.39
-406.74
-362.95
Global
1262.3
1195.11
1311.88
1287.69
Table 4: The agent receives collaborative rewards for the four forms of communication in the reward shaping high demand environment under ten simulations. Higher scores indicate superior agent performance.
Reward
NoComms
Communication
Truth
Lying
Mixed
Factory
42.62
71.82
-5.85
46.27
Retailer
-94.67
-190.75
-139.17
-174.39
Global
-52.04
-118.92
-145.02
-127.98
Table 5: Agent Baseline rewards in the low demand environment for the four forms of communication under 10 times simulation. Higher scores indicate superior agent performance.
Reward
NoComms
Communication
Truth
Lying
mixed
Factory
4.67
109.86
-9.6
33.68
Retailer
3.33
-87.53
-135.17
-88.99
Global
8
22.32
-144.77
-55.32
Table 6: Ten simulated experiments were conducted within a reward-shaping environment to assess the collaborative reward mechanism among agents, specifically addressing low demand across four communication formats. Higher scores indicate superior agent performance.
Figure 2: Comparison of factory rewards for the various communication approaches to the baseline environment with No Communication in the high demand environment.
Figure 3: Comparison of factory rewards for the various communication approaches to the baseline environment with No Communication in the low demand environment.
Figure 4: Comparison of retailer rewards for the various communication approaches to the baseline environment with no communication in the high demand environment.
Figure 5: Comparison of retailer rewards to the baseline environment with no communication in the low demand environment.
Figure 6: A comparison of inventory levels under the baseline and collaborative scenarios for the high demand.
Figure 7: A comparison of inventory levels under the baseline and collaborative scenarios for the low demand.
Trust
NoComms
Lying
Total Reward
High Demand
Baseline
19%
39.7%
41.3%
1310.82
Collab
25.5%
38.62%
36%
1287.69
Low Demand
Baseline
29.2%
31%
40.16%
-127.98
Collab
30.8%
44.04%
25.16%
-55.32
Table 7: Mixture of communication styles for the mixed environments.
We study collaborative learning in multi-agent Bayesian bandit problems, where strategic agents collectively solve the same bandit instance. While multiple agents can accelerate learning by sharing information, strategic agents might prefer to free-ride and avoid exploration. We consider a setting with persistent agents that participate in multiple time periods. This is in contrast to most previous works on incentives in multi-agent MAB, which assume short-lived agents, namely each agent has a single decision to make and optimizes their expected reward in that single decision. As in the multi-agent MAB model with incentives, our model does not have monetary transfers, and the only incentives are through information sharing. We propose CAOS, a mechanism that sustains collaboration as a Nash equilibrium while achieving strong regret guarantees. Our results demonstrate that collaborative exploration can be sustained purely through information sharing, achieving performance close to that of fully cooperative systems despite strategic behavior.
Multi-agent coordination under partial observability requires agents to share complementary private information. While recent methods optimize messages for intermediate objectives (e.g., reconstruction accuracy or mutual information), rather than decision quality, we introduce SeqComm-DFL, unifying the sequential communication with decision-focused learning for task performance. Our approach features value-aware message generation with sequential Stackelberg conditioning: messages maximize receiver decision quality and are generated in priority order, with agents conditioning on their predecessors. The guidance potential determined by their prosocial ordering. We extend Optimal Model Design to communication-augmented world models with QMIX factorization, enabling efficient end-to-end training via implicit differentiation. We prove information-theoretic bounds showing that communication value scales with coordination gaps and establish O(1/T) convergence for the bilevel optimization, where T denotes the number of training iterations. On collaborative healthcare and StarCraft Multi-Agent Challenge (SMAC) benchmarks, SeqComm-DFL achieves four to six times higher cumulative rewards and over 13% win rate improvements, enabling coordination strategies inaccessible under information asymmetry.
This paper studies the performance and reliability of autonomous generative AI agents in multi-echelon supply chains using the MIT Beer Game. We examine how model choice, operational guardrails, centralized data sharing, and prompt design affect system performance. In our best-performing configuration, GenAI agents reduce total supply-chain costs by up to 80% relative to human teams. Despite strong average performance, autonomous agents can exhibit substantial run-to-run instability, generating volatile procurement decisions and large tail costs. We characterize this phenomenon as agent bullwhip, the amplification of decision instability in autonomous multi-agent systems. We show that this instability can propagate across echelons and compound over time, even when the underlying demand path is held fixed. We then evaluate two approaches for improving reliability: reinforcement-learning post-training and operational guardrails. Both reduce tail events and mitigate agent bullwhip, but they operate through different mechanisms and require different levels of information and model access. Reinforcement-learning post-training delivers the largest gains in reliability and system performance when system-level feedback is available, while guardrails provide a simple training-free alternative for constraining extreme decisions.