skip to main content
article

Online algorithms for market clearing

Published: 01 September 2006 Publication History

Abstract

In this article, we study the problem of online market clearing where there is one commodity in the market being bought and sold by multiple buyers and sellers whose bids arrive and expire at different times. The auctioneer is faced with an online clearing problem of deciding which buy and sell bids to match without knowing what bids will arrive in the future. For maximizing profit, we present a (randomized) online algorithm with a competitive ratio of ln(pmaxpmin) + 1, when bids are in a range [pmin, pmax], which we show is the best possible. A simpler algorithm has a ratio twice this, and can be used even if expiration times are not known. For maximizing the number of trades, we present a simple greedy algorithm that achieves a factor of 2 competitive ratio if no money-losing trades are allowed. We also show that if the online algorithm is allowed to subsidize matches---match money-losing pairs if it has already collected enough money from previous pairs to pay for them---then it can actually be 1-competitive with respect to the optimal offline algorithm that is not allowed subsidy. That is, for maximizing the number of trades, the ability to subsidize is at least as valuable as knowing the future. We also consider objectives of maximizing buy or sell volume and social welfare. We present all of these results as corollaries of theorems on online matching in an incomplete interval graph.We also consider the issue of incentive compatibility, and develop a nearly optimal incentive-compatible algorithm for maximizing social welfare. For maximizing profit, we show that no incentive-compatible algorithm can achieve a sublinear competitive ratio, even if only one buy bid and one sell bid are alive at a time. However, we provide an algorithm that, under certain mild assumptions on the bids, performs nearly as well as the best fixed pair of buy and sell prices, a weaker but still natural performance measure. This latter result uses online learning methods, and we also show how such methods can be used to improve our “optimal” algorithms to a broader notion of optimality. Finally, we show how some of our results can be generalized to settings in which the buyers and sellers themselves have online bidding strategies, rather than just each having individual bids.

References

[1]
Awerbuch, B., Bartal, Y., Fiat, A., and Rosén, A. 1994. Competitive non-preemptive call control. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). ACM, New York, 312--320.]]
[2]
Bagchi, A., Chaudhary, A., Garg, R., Goodrich, M., and Kumar, V. 2001. Seller-focused algorithms for online auctioning. In Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Algorithms and Data Structures (WADS). 135--147.]]
[3]
Bar-Yossef, Z., Hildrum, K., and Wu, F. 2002. Incentive-compatible online auctions for digital goods. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). ACM, New York.]]
[4]
Berge, C. 1957. Two theorems in graph theory. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 43, 842--844.]]
[5]
Blum, A., and Burch, C. 2000. On-line learning and the metrical task system problem. Mach. Learn. 39, 1 (Apr.), 35--58.]]
[6]
Blum, A., and Hartline, J. 2005. Near-optimal online auctions. In Procedings of the 16th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). ACM, New York, 1156--1163.]]
[7]
Blum, A., Kumar, V., Rudra, A., and Wu, F. 2004. Online learning in online auctions. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 324, 2--3, 137--146. (Special issue in memory of Steven Seiden.)]]
[8]
Borodin, A., and El-Yaniv, R. 1998. Online Computation and Competitive Analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.]]
[9]
Bredin, J., and Parkes, D. 2005. Models for truthful online double auctions. In Proceedings of the 21st Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI). 50--59.]]
[10]
Cesa-Bianchi, N., Freund, Y., Helmbold, D., Haussler, D., Schapire, R., and Warmuth, M. 1997. How to use expert advice. J. ACM 44, 3, 427--485.]]
[11]
Deshmukh, K., Goldberg, A. V., Hartline, J. D., and Karlin, A. R. 2002. Truthful and competitive double auctions. In Proceedings of the 10th Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA). 361--373.]]
[12]
Domowitz, I. 1993. Automating the continuous double auction in practice: Automated trade execution systems in financial markets. In The Double Auction Market, D. Friedman and J. Rust, Eds. Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, vol. 14. Addison-Wesley, Reading, PA, 27--60.]]
[13]
El-Yaniv, R., Fiat, A., Karp, R. M., and Turpin, G. 1992. Competitive analysis of financial games. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 327--333.]]
[14]
Freund, Y., and Schapire, R. 1996. Game theory, on-line prediction and boosting. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory (COLT). ACM, New York, 325--332.]]
[15]
Goldberg, A., Hartline, J., and Wright, A. 2000. Competitive auctions and multiple digital goods. Tech. rep., InterTrust 00--01.]]
[16]
Goldberg, A., Hartline, J., and Wright, A. 2001. Competitive auctions and digital goods. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA) (Washington, DC.), ACM, New York.]]
[17]
Goldman, S., Parwatikar, J., and Suri, S. 2000. On-line scheduling with hard deadlines. J. Algorithms 34, 370--389.]]
[18]
Gong, J. 2002. Exchanges for complex commodities: Search for optimal matches. M.S. dissertation, University of South Florida.]]
[19]
Hagerty, K., and Rogerson, W. 1987. Robust trading mechanisms. J. Econ. Theory 42, 94--107.]]
[20]
Hajiaghayi, M. T., Kleinberg, R., and Parkes, D. C. 2004. Adaptive limited-supply online auctions. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC). ACM, New York, 71--80.]]
[21]
Hajiaghayi, M. T., Kleinberg, R. D., Mahdian, M., and Parkes, D. C. 2005. Online auctions with re-usable goods. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC). ACM, New York, 165--174.]]
[22]
Karp, R. M., Vazirani, U. V., and Vazirani, V. V. 1990. An optimal algorithm for on-line bipartite matching. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC) (Baltimore, MA). ACM, New York, 352--358.]]
[23]
Kozen, D. 1991. The Design and Analysis of Algorithms. Springer-Verlag, New York.]]
[24]
Lavi, R., and Nisan, N. 2000. Competitive analysis of incentive compatible on-line auctions. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (ACM-EC) (Minneapolis, MN). ACM, New York, 233--241.]]
[25]
Lipton, R. J., and Tomkins, A. 1994. Online interval scheduling. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA). ACM, New York, 302--311.]]
[26]
Littlestone, N., and Warmuth, M. K. 1994. The weighted majority algorithm. Inf. Computation 108, 212--261.]]
[27]
Myerson, R., and Satterthwaite, M. 1983. Efficient mechanisms for bilateral trading. J. Econ. Theory 28, 265--281.]]
[28]
Sandholm, T. 2002. eMediator: A next generation electronic commerce server. Computat. Intel. 18, 4, 656--676. (Special issue on Agent Technology for Electronic Commerce.)]]
[29]
Sandholm, T., Levine, D., Concordia, M., Martyn, P., Hughes, R., Jacobs, J., and Begg, D. 2006. Changing the game in strategic sourcing at Procter & Gamble: Expressive competition enabled by optimization. Interfaces 36, 1, 55--68.]]
[30]
Sandholm, T., and Suri, S. 2002. Optimal clearing of supply/demand curves. In Proceedings of the 13th Annual International Symposium on Algorithms and Computation (ISAAC). Vancouver, Canada. (Also appeared in the proceedings of the AAAI-02 workshop on Agent-Based Technologies for B2B Electronic Commerce (AAAI Technical Report WS-02-01), pp. 15--22, Edmonton, Ont., Canada.]]
[31]
Sandholm, T., and Suri, S. 2003. BOB: Improved winner determination in combinatorial auctions and generalizations. Artif. Intel. 145, 33--58.]]
[32]
Sandholm, T., and Suri, S. 2006. Side constraints and non-price attributes in markets. Games and Economic Behavior 55, 321--330. (Early version in IJCAI-01 Workshop on Distributed Constraint Reasoning, 55--61.)]]
[33]
Sandholm, T., Suri, S., Gilpin, A., and Levine, D. 2002. Winner determination in combinatorial auction generalizations. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (AAMAS). Bologna, Italy, 69--76.]]
[34]
Wurman, P., Walsh, W., and Wellman, M. 1998a. Flexible double auctions for electronic commerce: Theory and implementation. Decision Support Syst. 24, 1, 17--27.]]
[35]
Wurman, P., Wellman, M., and Walsh, W. 1998b. The Michigan Internet AuctionBot: A configurable auction server for human and software agents. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Autonomous Agents (AGENTS) (Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN). 301--308.]]
[36]
Zinkevich, M. 2004. Theoretical guarantees for algorithms in multiagent settings. Ph.D. dissertation. Carnegie Mellon University. CMU-CS-04-161.]]

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Near-Optimal Online Resource Allocation in the Random-Order ModelProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3663113(2219-2221)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
  • (2024)Online Matching: A Brief SurveyACM SIGecom Exchanges10.1145/3699824.369983722:1(135-158)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Introduction of Online Incentive Mechanism in Wireless CommunicationsEfficient Online Incentive Mechanism Designs for Wireless Communications10.1007/978-3-031-58453-4_1(1-14)Online publication date: 15-Apr-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Journal of the ACM
Journal of the ACM  Volume 53, Issue 5
September 2006
173 pages
ISSN:0004-5411
EISSN:1557-735X
DOI:10.1145/1183907
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 September 2006
Published in JACM Volume 53, Issue 5

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. Competitive analysis
  2. double auctions
  3. exchanges
  4. online algorithms

Qualifiers

  • Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)21
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
Reflects downloads up to 03 Mar 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Near-Optimal Online Resource Allocation in the Random-Order ModelProceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems10.5555/3635637.3663113(2219-2221)Online publication date: 6-May-2024
  • (2024)Online Matching: A Brief SurveyACM SIGecom Exchanges10.1145/3699824.369983722:1(135-158)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2024
  • (2024)Introduction of Online Incentive Mechanism in Wireless CommunicationsEfficient Online Incentive Mechanism Designs for Wireless Communications10.1007/978-3-031-58453-4_1(1-14)Online publication date: 15-Apr-2024
  • (2022)Online Double Auction for Wireless Spectrum Allocation With General Conflict GraphIEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology10.1109/TVT.2022.319245371:11(12222-12234)Online publication date: Nov-2022
  • (2021)Price Learning-based Incentive Mechanism for Mobile Crowd SensingACM Transactions on Sensor Networks10.1145/344762217:2(1-24)Online publication date: 25-Jun-2021
  • (2021)Online Algorithms for Dynamic Matching Markets in Power Distribution SystemsIEEE Control Systems Letters10.1109/LCSYS.2020.30080845:3(995-1000)Online publication date: Jul-2021
  • (2020)Maximum Matching in the Online Batch-arrival ModelACM Transactions on Algorithms10.1145/339967616:4(1-31)Online publication date: 20-Jul-2020
  • (2019)OFM: An Online Fisher Market for Cloud ComputingIEEE INFOCOM 2019 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications10.1109/INFOCOM.2019.8737641(2575-2583)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2019
  • (2019)Pricing and allocation algorithm designs in dynamic ridesharing systemTheoretical Computer Science10.1016/j.tcs.2019.05.045Online publication date: Jul-2019
  • (2018)Competitive Analysis for Discrete Multiple Online Rental ProblemsJournal of Management Science and Engineering10.3724/SP.J.1383.3030073:3(125-140)Online publication date: 2018
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

Login options

Full Access

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media