Explore/agent app/When LLM Agents Negotiate: Private Information and Dynamic Bargaining in Supply Chains
W

Chen Liang, Fasheng Xu/When LLM Agents Negotiate: Private Information and Dynamic Bargaining in Supply ChainsUnknown

As LLM agents move from decision support to autonomous procurement, firms need to know whether delegated negotiators create value, divide it predictably, and avoid money-losing contracts. We study this in a canonical supply chain bargaining problem: a buyer with private demand information negotiates a quantity-payment contract with an uninformed seller. We benchmark nine LLMs from OpenAI, Google, and Alibaba against a validated Perfect Bayesian Equilibrium across 9,840 LLM-to-LLM negotiations. First, capability governs value creation. Agents agree in 98.9% of negotiations and capture 95.4% of first-best surplus undiscounted, but average 2.98 rounds against the benchmark's 1.25, and this delay erodes 21-34% of surplus. Capability also governs reliability: baseline models accept individually irrational contracts in 19.2% of cases, versus 0.0-0.6% at mid-tier and flagship, making automated profit verification the binding guardrail below that threshold. Second, surplus capture is relational. Provider identity predicts who captures surplus better than capability rank: self-play buyer shares average 40% for OpenAI, 50% for Google, and 70% for Alibaba's Qwen, an ordering that survives restricted communication and no discounting. Reversing which provider sells moves the division by 7-18 percentage points, and the capable Qwen flagship is the weakest cross-family seller: vendor choice is a first-order distributional decision. Third, the prompt is a strategic lever. Delegation separates the principal's economic patience from the agent's prompted strategic patience, a free deployment choice that is the single strongest driver of surplus division (90% of explained variance). Together these establish an equilibrium-referenced audit of AI agents along three dimensions: discounted efficiency, distributional profile, and operational reliability.

agent app
GitHubCompare
Refreshed 8d ago
OverviewActivity52wAlternativesDocs
Stars0
Forks0
HF Downloads—30d
Last commit—
Refreshed8d ago
Project healthUnknownNo activity data.
Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.
Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.
AgentHub Score
55 / 100
Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →
Active project
55Score
Growth
40C
Activity
30C
Documentation
70C+
Maturity
45C
Community
42C
Production
58C
GitHub stars · 13 days observed0 not enough history
snapshots
Repository activity · 13 days observedReal snapshots from pushed_at
inactivepushed
2026-08-122026-08-26
Practical assessment
Should you use it?

✓ Best for

  • Research and experimentation
  • Prototype development
  • Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

  • Active community
  • Open source
  • Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

  • Untested at scale without validation
  • Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

  • Review changelog before updating
  • Verify license for commercial use
Technical details
What's inside
Language—
License—
Sourcearxiv
Open source✗ No
Commercial use—
Docs—
Demo—

AgentHub Score

55
Score 55/100
Below average

Alternatives

O
OccuReward: LLM-Guided Occupant-Centric Reward Shaping for Demographic Equity in Grid-Interactive Buildings
0 · agent app
55
C
Concepts for Securing Agentic AI Coding and the Terok Environment
0 · agent app
55
A
AEGIS: Preventing Cross-Domain Resource Abuse in MCP
0 · agent app
55
U
Unaccountable Delegation, Fading Skills: Mapping the Risks of Workplace AI Agents
0 · agent app
55Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——
Indexed by AgentHub crawler8d ago
Monitor for new releasesongoing