As global political tensions rise and the anticipation of additional tariffs from the United States on international trade increases, the issues of economic independence and supply chain resilience become more prominent. The importance of supply chain resilience has been further underscored by disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing war in Ukraine. In light of these challenges, ranging from geopolitical instability to product supply uncertainties, governments are increasingly focused on adopting new trade policies. This study explores the impact of several of these policies on the global electric vehicle (EV) supply chain network, with a particular focus on their effects on country clusters and the broader structure of international trade. Specifically, we analyse three key policies: Country Plus One, Friendshoring, and Reshoring. Our findings show that Friendshoring, contrary to expectations, leads to greater globalisation by increasing the number of supply links across friendly countries, potentially raising transaction costs. The Country Plus One policy similarly enhances network density through redundant links, while the Reshoring policy creates challenges in the EV sector due to the high number of irreplaceable products. Additionally, the effects of these policies vary across industries; for instance, mining goods being less affected in Country Plus One than the Friendshoring policy.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: A) Illustration of the two groups of clusters used in the analysis: (a) geographical clusters composed of a subset of American, Asian and European countries and (b) geopolitical clusters composed of Low Risk cluster and Low & Medium Risk cluster countries. B) Examples illustrating the three policies: (a) an initial supplier network to a company in France, (b) Country+1 where the Country=Germany therefore France supplies from Germany and supplies the same products from a company outside of Germany, (c) application of the policy Friendshoring where the company from France only supplies from neighbouring countries, and (d) Reshore policy where the company only supplies from companies within the country. C) Dataset statistics: (a) average number of firms and products per firm, (b) number of unique products, and (c) in- and out-degrees, and specialisation of each cluster.
Figure 2: A) Visualization of results across five network metrics: shortest path, domestic and international connections, modularity, size of non-substitutable products and companies’ suppliers across five clusters (American, European, Asian, Low Risk, and Low & Medium Risk). The results are displayed as box plots for indeterministic metrics (metrics that change due to the randomness of our policy applications) and as bar plots for those with deterministic behaviour. The grey dotted line represents the parameter value in the initial network before any policy application. B) Illustration of the initial mapping (a) and the remapping (b, c, d) after the application of each policy on the Low Risk scope between firms of different countries grouped by the geopolitical clusters.
Figure 3: Visualization of the number of affected companies by country after the application of the policies Country+1 (China+1 and High Risk+1), Friendshoring and Reshoring across the Geographical scope (American, European, Asian) and Geopolitical scope (Low Risk, and Low & Medium Risk).
Scope / Policy
China+1
Friendshoring
Reshoring
American
Transportation Equipment
Transportation Equipment
Mine, Refinery, Smelter
Industrial Intermediate Prod
Oil & Gas Services & Equip
Mine, Smelter
Semiconductors
Industrial Intermediate Prod
Mine
Technology Services
Steel
Smelter
Renewable Energy
Machinery
Telecommunications
European
Transportation Equipment
Cable & Satellite
Mine, Refinery, Smelter
Table 1: Top 5 most vulnerable industries under each policy scenario across different scopes.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: Visualisation of our dataset. (a) Scatter plot showing the number of firms ( x -axis) and the average number of products per firm ( y -axis) for all locations with more than 10 firms. (b) Heatmaps: the left panel illustrates bilateral customer-supplier relationships between countries, and the right panel depicts country-industry specialisation in production. (c) Distribution of the number of products across industries.
Geopolitical Clusters
Geographical Clusters
Low Risk (19)
Medium Risk (107)
High Risk (15)
Asian (10)
American (3)
European (31)
Australia
Algeria
Ghana
Namibia
Belarus
China
Canada
Austria
Belgium
Angola
Greece
New Caledonia
Cambodia
Hong Kong
Mexico
Belgium
Canada
Argentina
Guatemala
Nigeria
China
India
United States
Bulgaria
Denmark
Aruba
Guinea
Oman
DR Congo
Indonesia
Croatia
Finland
Austria
Guyana
Pakistan
Cuba
Japan
Cyprus
Appendix
Table 2: List of countries categorized by their Geopolitical (Low, Medium, and High Risk) and Geographical (Asian, American, and European) clusters, which have at least one customer or supplier company in the dataset.
After enforcing policy
Network Measures
Initial
China+1
Friendshoring
Reshoring
Avg. No. Edges
56339
59287.2
61931
61478
Density
0.000243
0.000256
0.000268
0.000266
Degree Assortativity
-0.121478
-0.124697
-0.112675
-0.109282
Location Assortativity
0.428589
0.410186
0.47501
0.52449
Avg. Shortest Path Length
4.575134
4.597169
4.745798
4.753068
Appendix
Table 3: Network measures before and after enforcing the three policies in the American cluster.
After enforcing policy
Network Measures
Initial
China+1
Friendshoring
Reshoring
Avg. No. Edges
56339
61148
62989
59018
Density
0.000243
0.000264
0.000272
0.000255
Degree Assortativity
-0.121478
-0.133112
-0.111633
-0.112158
Location Assortativity
0.428589
0.395352
0.409187
0.525181
Avg. Shortest Path Length
4.575134
4.624493
4.602967
4.661914
Appendix
Table 4: Network measures before and after enforcing the three policies in the European cluster.
After enforcing policy
Network Measures
Initial
China+1
Friendshoring
Reshoring
Avg. No. Edges
56339
62015.8
67732
68218
Density
0.000243
0.000268
0.000293
0.000295
Degree Assortativity
-0.121478
-0.124529
-0.112532
-0.105941
Location Assortativity
0.428589
0.390959
0.37841
0.633812
Avg. Shortest Path Length
4.575134
4.662426
4.621184
4.933708
Appendix
Table 5: Network measures before and after enforcing the three policies in the Asian cluster.
After enforcing policy
Network Measures
Initial
High Risk+1
Friendshoring
Reshoring
Avg. No. Edges
56339
68467.2
68161
69999
Density
0.000243
0.000296
0.000294
0.000302
Degree Assortativity
-0.121478
-0.13027
-0.103142
-0.093862
Location Assortativity
0.428589
0.356546
0.372094
0.699809
Avg. Shortest Path Length
4.575134
4.569131
4.729862
4.957766
Appendix
Table 6: Network measures before and after enforcing the three policies in the Low Risk cluster.
After enforcing policy
Network Measures
Initial
High Risk+1
Friendshoring
Reshoring
Avg. No. Edges
56339
72863.8
64989
72665
Density
0.000243
0.000315
0.000281
0.000314
Degree Assortativity
-0.121478
-0.122476
-0.109138
-0.078241
Location Assortativity
0.428589
0.334296
0.380879
0.752534
Avg. Shortest Path Length
4.575134
4.563405
4.742278
5.093038
Appendix
Table 7: Network measures before and after enforcing the three policies in the Low & Medium Risk cluster.
Scope / Policy
China+1
Friendshoring
Reshoring
American
Rear Axle Module
Transmission
Alumina
ABS ECU
Rebar
Transmission
Brake Pedal
Brake
Rebar
Air Bag Fabric
Steel billets
Software
Engine Cooling Module
Wheel Hub
Wire rods
European
Engine Cooling Module
Dolomite
Steel meshes
Appendix
Table 8: Top 5 most vulnerable products under each policy-scope scenario.
Figure 5: Visualization of the percentage of affected companies by country after the application of the policies Country+1 (China+1 and High Risk+1), Friendshoring and Reshoring across the Geographical scope (American, European, Asian) and Geopolitical scope (Low Risk, and Low & Medium Risk).
Figure 6: Visualization of the degree of the affected companies after the application of the policies Country+1 (China+1 and High Risk+1), Friendshoring and Reshoring across the Geographical and Geopolitical scope
Semiconductor supply chains face unprecedented resilience challenges amidst global geopolitical turbulence. Conventional Large Language Model (LLM) planners, when confronting such non-stationary "Policy Black Swan" events, frequently suffer from Decision Paralysis or a severe Grounding Gap due to the absence of physical environmental modeling. This paper introduces ReflectiChain, a cognitive agentic framework tailored for resilient macroeconomic supply chain planning. The core innovation lies in the integration of Latent Trajectory Rehearsal powered by a generative world model, which couples reflection-in-action (System 2 deliberation) with delayed reflection-on-action. Furthermore, we leverage a Retrospective Agentic RL mechanism to enable autonomous policy evolution during the deployment phase (test-time). Evaluations conducted on our high-fidelity benchmark, Semi-Sim, demonstrate that under extreme scenarios such as export bans and material shortages, ReflectiChain achieves a 250% improvement in average step rewards over the strongest LLM baselines. It successfully restores the Operability Ratio (OR) from a deficient 13.3% to over 88.5% while ensuring robust gradient convergence. Ablation studies further underscore that the synergy between physical grounding constraints and double-loop learning is fundamental to bridging the gap between semantic reasoning and physical reality for long-horizon strategic planning.
Jia Luo
Huazhong University and Science and Technology Wuhan, China
Agricultural supply chains are vulnerable to disruptions through linked biophysical and economic systems. We develop an AI-powered tool that integrates economic models (GTAP) with biophysical models (APSIM) to analyze supply chain shocks, enabling policymakers and market participants to assess cross-disciplinary impacts through queries and responses written in natural language.
Joshua R. Waite, Dana Golden, Brett Indelicato +8
Translational AI Center, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA. · Department of Economics, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA. · Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. +4
Safety interventions for large populations of network-coupled agents must protect shared constraints without unnecessarily overriding task-oriented policy decisions. We present HetGPS, a hybrid graph-control framework synergizing learned graph risk with physics-anchored correction by separating intervention magnitude from corrective direction. An action-conditioned graph residual model schedules state-dependent intervention authority, while a physics model determines its direction. For electric vehicle (EV) charging, we couple this filter with a parameter-shared heterogeneous graph soft actor-critic policy, enabling topology-aware coordination with a learned model size independent of fleet size. Across five nested distribution networks with 200--3,218 EVs and 100 evaluation days, Adaptive Authority reduces bus--step voltage violations from 3.93--7.74% without filtering to 0.52--3.44%, while maintaining 99.06--100% departure success. Relative to the same physics-directed projection with fixed authority, it improves mean reward on all five networks and lowers the mean safety score on four. The deployed policy-and-risk model contains 383,702 learned parameters at every scale; at 3,218 EVs, a matched centralized SAC actor is about 170× larger. A policy trained on the eight-transformer system transfers zero-shot to the 16- and 32-transformer systems, attaining 0.57--0.75% violation rates and at least 99.99% departure success. These results show that learned graph risk can allocate intervention authority at scale while feeder physics anchors corrective action.
Xiangwei Wang, Nanduni Nimalsiri, Yu Xia +2
The University of Melbourne, Australia · CSIRO, Australia · Shanghai Jiao Tong University, China