0 cumulative citations
View corpus contextFederated learning lets grocers pool forecasting power without exchanging raw data, matching the accuracy of shared-data models and materially cutting simulated food waste compared with stand-alone models.
Blockchain Federated Learning for Sustainable Retail: Reducing Waste through Collaborative Demand Forecasting
Blockchain-enabled federated learning lets grocery retailers collaboratively forecast demand without sharing raw data, achieving near-centralized accuracy and substantially outperforming isolated retailer models in reducing simulated food waste.
Citation observations
Cumulative provider counts captured on specific dates; providers are never combined.
Effective demand forecasting is crucial for reducing food waste. However, data privacy concerns often hinder collaboration among retailers, limiting the potential for improved predictive accuracy. In this study, we explore the application of Federated Learning (FL) in Sustainable Supply Chain Management (SSCM), with a focus on the grocery retail sector dealing with perishable goods. We develop a baseline predictive model for demand forecasting and waste assessment in an isolated retailer scenario. Subsequently, we introduce a Blockchain-based FL model, trained collaboratively across multiple retailers without direct data sharing. Our preliminary results show that FL models have performance almost equivalent to the ideal setting in which parties share data with each other, and are notably superior to models built by individual parties without sharing data, cutting waste and boosting efficiency.
Summary
Main Finding
Federated Learning (FL), combined with secure aggregation and Blockchain-based transparency, can deliver demand-forecasting performance close to a centralized (data-sharing) benchmark while preserving retailers’ data privacy. In the Walmart weekly-sales case study, FL substantially reduces over-provisioning error (OE) — on average >5% reduction in OE (waste proxy), with some data-poor stores showing waste reductions >40% — and outperforms standalone models that each retailer trains alone.
Key Points
- Problem and motivation
- Retailers balancing stockouts vs. overstock drive perishable food waste; collaboration could improve forecasts but data-sharing is constrained by privacy/competition.
- FL offers parameter-level collaboration without raw-data exchange; blockchain + IPFS used to provide auditability and tamper-resistance.
- Empirical headline results
- Centralized training gives the lowest MSE; Federated MSE is slightly higher but substantially better than standalone/local models.
- FL reduces over-provisioning error (OE) on average by >5%; worst-performing standalone stores see OE (waste) reductions exceeding 40% under FL.
- Privacy, security, transparency stack
- Secure Aggregation Plus (SecAgg+) used so server only sees aggregated updates.
- Gradient clipping + Gaussian noise added (global differential privacy), but authors note DP noise can highly degrade performance when aggressive.
- IPFS stores model artifacts (CIDs) and CIDs are recorded on an Ethereum-based Blockchain for tamper-evidence and auditability.
- Practical/engineering trade-offs
- System is not fully decentralized: a server remains a single point of failure (design choice for cross-device, same-organization FL).
- Gas/transaction costs vary widely across chains; Layer-2/sidechains are far cheaper than mainnet (examples: Optimism ≈ 8.5×10^-5 ETH estimated overall cost vs. Polygon PoS up to ≈4.03 ETH in their setup).
- FedAvg (with SecAgg+) used as aggregator; FedProx/FedAdam were tested but FedAvg matched low heterogeneity scenario best.
Data & Methods
- Dataset
- Walmart weekly sales dataset (2010–2012), subset of 45 stores.
- Features: weekly sales (target), store id, date (weekday/month/year extracted), holiday flag, temperature, fuel price, CPI, unemployment.
- Modeling & preprocessing
- Standardization (z-score); lag-based feature engineering for time-series context.
- Train/test splits: experiments with 70/30 and 30/70 to simulate different local data availability.
- Model: simple feedforward neural network (leaky ReLU, dropout, weight decay). LSTM/attention models were intentionally avoided to simplify comparison and reduce client overfitting risks.
- FL pipeline
- Horizontal (cross-device) FL with K clients (stores); FedAvg across rounds.
- Per-round: clients compute gradients, gradient clipping to threshold C, add Gaussian noise (DP), send masked updates; SecAgg+ used for secure aggregation.
- Global DP applied to the aggregated model before publishing; model artifacts saved to IPFS and CIDs stored on blockchain for verification.
- Baselines and comparisons
- Standalone (each store trains locally), Centralized (all data pooled), Federated (models aggregated as above).
- Metrics: Mean Squared Error (MSE) for forecasting quality; Over-Provisioning Error (OE) as proxy for waste/overstock.
- Blockchain cost evaluation
- Replicated smart contract transactions on multiple Ethereum-based chains to compare gas and inferred monetary costs. Layer-2s much cheaper; authors provide a comparison table with per-chain gas and estimated ETH costs.
Implications for AI Economics
- Welfare and efficiency gains
- Privacy-preserving FL can partially resolve a coordination/prisoner’s-dilemma among competing retailers: joint model improves forecasting accuracy and reduces waste, potentially lowering aggregate inventory costs and environmental externalities.
- Measurable gains (OE reductions) imply direct cost savings and lower perishable waste (hence lower embodied GHG), which can be valued economically in business cases or policy incentives.
- Distributional and incentive issues
- Benefits are heterogeneous: data-poor stores gain more from FL, while data-rich participants may contribute disproportionately. Designing compensation/incentive mechanisms (token rewards, revenue sharing, reputation systems) is necessary to sustain voluntary participation.
- Risk of free-riding, strategic misreporting, or “short-term gaming” (e.g., manipulating local behavior to influence shared model) suggests need for mechanism design and governance (auditability helps, but economic incentives and penalties are required).
- Cost vs. privacy trade-offs
- Blockchain and auditing increase transparency but introduce transaction costs. Layer-2 choices can mitigate costs but may raise security/interoperability concerns. Economic viability depends on comparing savings from waste reductions to operational and on-chain costs.
- Differential privacy improves legal/privacy compliance but can reduce model quality; the economic trade-off between privacy (regulatory/compliance value) and forecasting performance should be quantified when deciding privacy budgets.
- Market structure and regulation
- Cross-firm FL may blur boundaries between cooperation and collusion. Regulators may need guidance: encouraging sustainability-enhancing collaboration while preventing anti-competitive information sharing.
- Standardized protocols, certification for privacy/security, and possibly safe-harbor rules could lower transaction costs and speed adoption.
- Research and policy questions raised
- How to design incentive schemes that fairly allocate gains and encourage participation (e.g., side payments, tokenization, reputation)?
- How do gains from FL scale with the number of participants, heterogeneity of data, and market concentration (do incumbents capture most benefits)?
- What is the social value (in emissions and welfare terms) of waste reductions enabled by FL, and how should policymakers support such coordination technologies?
- Evaluation of alternative architectures (fully decentralized vs. server-assisted) and their economic trade-offs in large-scale, multi-actor supply chains.
Limitations noted by the authors (and relevant to economic interpretation) - Small/controlled experimental sample (45 stores) and use of a simple NN limit external validity; results may vary with more complex dynamics or other product categories. - System retains a central server (single point of failure) and DP can be performance-sensitive; practical deployments must manage these operational risks and privacy-utility trade-offs. - Blockchain cost estimates are sensitive to network conditions and feature choices (e.g., frequency of on-chain writes, recording partial updates, incentive tokens).
Suggested next steps for economic research or practitioners - Cost–benefit analyses that monetize waste reductions vs. system and on-chain costs under realistic deployment scales. - Mechanism design experiments for incentive sharing and anti-collusion safeguards. - Field pilots across heterogeneous retailers (size, geography, assortment) to measure distributional impacts and scalability.
Assessment
Paper Typecorrelational
Evidence Strengthlow — Findings are based on comparative model performance in a preliminary experimental setup rather than a design that isolates causal effects (no randomization or natural experiment); likely limited sample size and backtest/simulation-based assessment of waste reduction rather than observed real-world operational outcomes.
Methods Rigormedium — The paper implements a sensible empirical comparison (isolated models vs. federated learning vs. pooled/ideal benchmark) and reports predictive performance improvements, but appears preliminary: limited detail on data size/heterogeneity, robustness checks, privacy leakage tests, hyperparameter tuning, and real-world deployment constraints are missing.
SamplePreliminary experiments using historical sales/inventory/waste records for perishable grocery items partitioned to represent multiple retailers (small number of parties); models trained and evaluated in isolated, pooled (ideal), and blockchain-enabled federated learning setups; evaluation likely via standard forecasting metrics and simulated waste calculation.
Themesproductivity adoption
GeneralizabilitySmall and preliminary sample—unclear number and diversity of retailers, May reflect a single country or retail context; not validated across regions or retail formats, Focus on perishable grocery items—results may not generalize to non-perishables or other supply chains, Experimental/simulated setup (blockchain coordination and simulated waste accounting) not the same as real-world deployment, Assumes compatible data schemas and sufficient local data quality; heterogeneity across firms could reduce gains, Operational costs, incentives to participate, and legal/regulatory constraints around FL/blockchain not evaluated
Claims (6)
| Claim | Direction | Outcome | Confidence & Evidence | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effective demand forecasting is crucial for reducing food waste. Organizational Efficiency | positive | food waste (reduction) |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
speculative
|
not reported
|
| Data privacy concerns often hinder collaboration among retailers, limiting the potential for improved predictive accuracy. Adoption Rate | negative | collaboration among retailers / predictive accuracy |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
not reported
|
| We develop a baseline predictive model for demand forecasting and waste assessment in an isolated retailer scenario. Output Quality | positive | demand forecasting accuracy and waste assessment |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
not reported
|
| We introduce a Blockchain-based Federated Learning (FL) model, trained collaboratively across multiple retailers without direct data sharing. Other | positive | ability to train collaboratively without sharing raw data |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
not reported
|
| Preliminary results show that FL models have performance almost equivalent to the ideal setting in which parties share data with each other. Output Quality | null_result | predictive performance / model accuracy |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
not reported
|
| FL models are notably superior to models built by individual parties without sharing data, cutting waste and boosting efficiency. Organizational Efficiency | positive | predictive performance, food waste (reduction), operational efficiency |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
not reported
|