Skip to main content
Log in

A deep reinforcement learning-based approach for pricing in the competing auction-based cloud market

  • Original Research Paper
  • Published:
Service Oriented Computing and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the cloud market, there exist multiple cloud providers adopting auction-based mechanisms to offer cloud resources to users. These auction-based cloud providers need to compete against each other to maximize the profits by setting the cloud resource prices effectively. In this paper, we analyze how an auction-based cloud provider sets the auction price effectively when competing against other cloud providers in the evolutionary market where the amount of participated cloud users is changing. The pricing strategy is affected by many factors, such as the auction price of its opponents, the prices charged to users in the previous round, the bidding behavior of cloud users, and so on. Therefore, we model this problem as a partially observable Markov game and adopt a gradient-based multi-agent deep reinforcement learning algorithm to generate the competing pricing strategy. We also run extensive experiments to evaluate our pricing strategy against other five benchmark pricing strategies in the auction-based cloud market. The experimental results show that our generated pricing strategy can beat other pricing strategies in terms of long-term profits and the amount of participated users, and it can also learn cloud users’ marginal values and their choice of cloud providers effectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Note that our setting can be easily extended to the case with more than two competing cloud providers. In the real world, although there exist more than two cloud providers, users’ final choices are usually made in the two providers, and thus we focus on the competition between two cloud providers.

  2. When cloud users choose the cloud provider, they have not actually participate and submit bids, and thus the cloud provider cannot determine the actual auction price at this stage. Therefore, we consider that cloud users use the average auction price as the expected payment of per unit resource when computing the expected utility.

References

  1. Alzhouri F, Agarwal A, Liu Y (2021) Maximizing cloud revenue using dynamic pricing of multiple class virtual machines. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 9(2):682–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Åström KJ, Murray RM (2010) Feedback systems: an introduction for scientists and engineers. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Bichler M, Kalagnanam J, Katircioglu K et al (2002) Applications of flexible pricing in business-to-business electronic commerce. IBM Syst J 41:287–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cai Z, Li X, Ruiz R et al (2018) Price forecasting for spot instances in cloud computing. Future Gener Comput Syst 79:38–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Cardellini V, Valerio VD, Presti FL (2020) Game-theoretic resource pricing and provisioning strategies in cloud systems. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 13(1):86–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dawoud W, Takouna I, Meinel C (2012) Reliable approach to sell the spare capacity in the cloud. In: Cloud computing, pp 229–236

  7. Du B, Wu C, Huang Z (2019) Learning resource allocation and pricing for cloud profit maximization. AAAI Press, Palo Alto, pp 7570–7577

    Google Scholar 

  8. Feng Y, Li B, Li B (2013) Price competition in an oligopoly market with multiple IAAS cloud providers. IEEE Trans Comput 63:59–73

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Jung H, Klein CM (2001) Optimal inventory policies under decreasing cost functions via geometric programming. Eur J Oper Res 132:628–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kansal S, Kumar H, Kaushal S et al (2018) Genetic algorithm-based cost minimization pricing model for on-demand IAAS cloud service. J Supercomput 76:1–26

    Google Scholar 

  11. Khandelwal V, Gupta CP, Chaturvedi AK (2018) Perceptive bidding strategy for amazon EC2 spot instance market. Multiagent Grid Syst 14:83–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kumar D, Baranwal G, Raza Z et al (2018) A survey on spot pricing in cloud computing. J Netw Syst Manag 26:809–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Littman ML (1994) Markov games as a framework for multi-agent reinforcement learning. In: Proceedings of the eleventh international conference on machine learning (ML-94), pp 157–163

  14. Lowe R, Wu Y, Tamar A, et al (2017) Multi-agent actor-critic for mixed cooperative-competitive environments. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 6379–6390

  15. Marschak J (1959) Binary choice constraints on random utility indicators. Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers

  16. Mei J, Li K, Tong Z et al (2018) Profit maximization for cloud brokers in cloud computing. IEEE Trans Parallel Distrib Syst 30(1):190–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Nguyen ND, Nguyen T, Nahavandi S (2019) Multi-agent behavioral control system using deep reinforcement learning. Neurocomputing 359:58–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Pearl R, Reed LJ (1920) On the rate of growth of the population of the united states since 1790 and its mathematical representation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 6:275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pinto L, Davidson J, Sukthankar R, et al (2017) Robust adversarial reinforcement learning. In: Proceedings of the 34th international conference on machine learning, pp 2817–2826

  20. Rong J, Qin T, An B (2019) Competitive cloud pricing for long-term revenue maximization. J Comput Sci Technol 34(3):645–656

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. Shi B, Zhu H, Wang J, et al (2017) Optimize pricing policy in evolutionary market with multiple proactive competing cloud providers. In: 2017 IEEE 29th international conference on tools with artificial intelligence (ICTAI), pp 202–209

  22. Silver D, van Hasselt H, Hessel M, et al (2017) The predictron: end-to-end learning and planning. In: Proceedings of the 34th international conference on machine learning, pp 3191–3199

  23. Silver D, Schrittwieser J, Simonyan K et al (2017) Mastering the game of go without human knowledge. Nature 550:354–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Train KE (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  25. Truong-Huu T, Tham CK (2013) A game-theoretic model for dynamic pricing and competition among cloud providers. In: 2013 IEEE/ACM 6th international conference on utility and cloud computing, pp 235–238

  26. Truong-Huu T, Tham CK (2014) A novel model for competition and cooperation among cloud providers. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 2(3):251–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Venugopal S (2009) Cloud computing and emerging it platforms: vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Future Gener Comput Syst 25:599–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang P, Qi Y, Hui D, et al (2013) Present or future: optimal pricing for spot instances. In: 2013 IEEE 33rd international conference on distributed computing systems, pp 410–419

  29. Wu C, Toosi AN, Buyya R et al (2021) Hedonic pricing of cloud computing services. IEEE Trans Cloud Comput 9(1):182–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Xu B, Qin T, Qiu G, et al (2015) Optimal pricing for the competitive and evolutionary cloud market. In: Twenty-fourth international joint conference on artificial intelligence, pp 139–145

  31. Zhang F, Li J, Li Z (2020) A TD3-based multi-agent deep reinforcement learning method in mixed cooperation–competition environment. Neurocomputing 411:206–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Zheng L, Joe-Wong C, Tan CW et al (2015) How to bid the cloud. ACM SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 45:71–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was funded by the Humanity and Social Science Youth Research Foundation of Ministry of Education (Grant No. 19YJC790111), the Philosophy and Social Science Post-Foundation of Ministry of Education (Grant No. 18JHQ060) and Shenzhen Fundamental Research Program (Grant No. JCYJ20190809175613332).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bing Shi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

In this section, we describe how to derive the probability of the cloud user choosing a cloud provider given its expected utility. Specifically, the probability of cloud user j choosing to be served by provider i at stage t is denoted as \(P_{j, i}^{t}\):

$$\begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} P_{j, i}^{t}&={\text {Prob}}\left( u_{j, i}^{t}>u_{j, i^{\prime }}^{t},\forall i^{\prime } \ne i\right) \\&={\text {Prob}}\left( v_{j, i}^{t}+\eta _{j, i}>v_{j, i^{\prime }}^{t}+\eta _{j, i^{\prime }}, \forall i^{\prime } \ne i\right) \\&={\text {Prob}}\left( \eta _{j, i^{\prime }}<v_{j, i}^{t}-v_{j, i^{\prime }}^{t}+\eta _{j, i}, \forall i^{\prime } \ne i\right) \end{aligned} \end{aligned}$$
(20)

From Eq. 20, we can see that cloud user j will choose to be served by provider i only if the user’s utility is maximized. According to Eq. 7, we then get an expression for the choice probability:

$$\begin{aligned} P_{j,i}^{t}=e^{-e^{(v_{j,i}^{t}-v_{j,i^{\prime }}^{t}+\eta _{j,i})}} \end{aligned}$$
(21)

Since \(\eta _{j,i}\) is independent, the cumulative distribution over all \(i^{\prime }\ne i\) is the product of the individual cumulative distributions:

$$\begin{aligned} P_{j, i}^{t} \vert \eta _{j, i}=\prod _{i \ne i^{\prime }} e^{-e^{v_{j, i}^{t}-v_{j, i^{\prime }}^{t}+\eta _{j, i}}} \end{aligned}$$
(22)

Now, the choice probability is the integral of \(P_{j,i}^{t}\vert \eta _{j,i}\) over all values of \(\eta _{j,i}\) weighted by its density:

$$\begin{aligned} \small P_{j, i}^{t}=\int \left( \prod _{i \ne i^{\prime }} e^{-e^{-(p_{i,t}^\mathrm{avg}-p_{i^{\prime },t}^\mathrm{avg}-\eta _{j, i})}}\right) e^{-\eta _{j, i}} e^{-e^{-\eta _{j, i}}} \hbox {d} \eta _{j, i} \end{aligned}$$
(23)

The closed-form expression is

$$\begin{aligned} P_{j, i}^{t}=\frac{e^{v_{j, i}^{t}}}{\sum _{i^{\prime }} e^{v_{j, i^{\prime }}^{t}}} \end{aligned}$$
(24)

which is the probability of user j choosing provider i at stage t.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shi, B., Huang, L. & Shi, R. A deep reinforcement learning-based approach for pricing in the competing auction-based cloud market. SOCA 16, 83–95 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11761-022-00334-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11761-022-00334-8

Keywords

Navigation