skip to main content
10.1145/501158.501171acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Bidding algorithms for simultaneous auctions

Published:14 October 2001Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper introduces RoxyBot, one of the top-scoring agents in the First International Trading Agent Competition. A TAC agent simulates one vision of future travel agents: it represents a set of clients in simultaneous auctions, trading complementary (e.g., airline tickets and hotel reservations) and substitutable (e.g., symphony and theater tickets) goods. RoxyBot faced two key technical challenges in TAC: (i) allocation---assigning purchased goods to clients at the end of a game instance so as to maximize total client utility, and (ii) completion---determining the optimal quantity of each resource to buy and sell given client preferences, current holdings, and market prices. For the dimensions of TAC, an optimal solution to the allocation problem is tractable, and RoxyBot uses a search algorithm based on A* to produce optimal allocations. An optimal solution to the completion problem is also tractable, but in the interest of minimizing bidding cycle time, RoxyBot solves the completion problem using beam search, producing approximately optimal completions. RoxyBot's completer relies on an innovative data structure called a priceline.

References

  1. 1.B. Abramson. Expected-outcome: A general model of static evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 12(2):182-193, Feb. 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. 2.D. Cliff and J. Bruten. Zero is not enough: On the lower limit of agent intelligence for continuous double auction markets. HP Technical Report HPL-97-141, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.Y. Fujishima, K. Leyton-Brown, and Y. Shoham. Taming the computational complexity ofcombinatorial auctions. In Proceedings of Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 548-553, August 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. 4.R. Gonen and D. Lehmann. Optimal solutions for multi-unit combinatorial auctions: Branch and bound heuristics. In Proceedings of Second ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 13-29, October 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. 5.A. Greenwald, J. Boyan, R. M. Kirby, and J. Reiter. Bid determination in simultaneous auctions. Available at http://www.cs.brown.edu/people/amygreen/, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.A. Greenwald and P. Stone. Autonomous bidding agents in the Trading Agent Competition. IEEE Internet Computing, April 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. 7.K. Leyton-Brown, M. Pearson, and Y. Shoham. Towards a universal test suite for combinatorial auction algorithms. In Proceedings of Second ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pages 66-76, October 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 8.S. Russell and P. Norvig. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Prentice-Hall, 1995. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. 9.T. Sandholm and S. Suri. Improved algorithms for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions and generalizations. In Proceedings of AAAI, pages 90-97, 2000. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. 10.P. Stone, M. L. Littman, S. Singh, and M. Kearns. ATTac-2000: An adaptive autonomous bidding agent. In Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. 11.G. Tesauro and G. R. Galperin. On-line policy improvement using Monte-Carlo search. In M. C. Mozer, M. I. Jordan, and T. Petsche, editors, Advances in NIPS, volume 9. MIT Press, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.M. P. Wellman, P. R. Wurman, K. O'Malley, R. Bangera, S.-d. Lin, D. Reeves,and W. E.Walsh. A trading agent competition. IEEE Internet Computing, April 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Bidding algorithms for simultaneous auctions

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          EC '01: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM conference on Electronic Commerce
          October 2001
          277 pages
          ISBN:1581133871
          DOI:10.1145/501158

          Copyright © 2001 ACM

          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: 14 October 2001

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • Article

          Acceptance Rates

          EC '01 Paper Acceptance Rate35of100submissions,35%Overall Acceptance Rate664of2,389submissions,28%

          Upcoming Conference

          EC '24
          The 25th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation
          July 8 - 11, 2024
          New Haven , CT , USA

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader