Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 168, Issue 1, pp 291–305

Designing sniping agents

Article
  • 79 Downloads

Abstract

Sniping agents are increasingly being deployed to assist bidders in acquiring items in online auctions. This paper reviews the extant auction literature and proposes an overarching sniping agent design framework that could potentially increase the commercial viability of snipping agents. For better alignment between the functions of sniping agents and the needs of human bidders, we review existing literature based on three fundamentals: (1) knowledge about human bidder behavior, (2) awareness of the product(s) desired by a bidder, and (3) an understanding of the research on bidding agents and auction design. The output of this review is the explicit consideration of iterative combinatorial auction agent design, fuzzy set representation of the bidder’s preferences and dynamic derivation of bidding strategies according to the progress of ongoing auctions.

Keywords

Online auctions Sniping agent Heuristics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anthony, P., & Jennings, N. R. (2003). Developing a bidding agent for multiple heterogeneous auctions. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 3(3), 185–217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ariely, D., & Simonson, I. (2003). Buying, bidding, playing, or competing? Value assessment and decision dynamics in online auctions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(1–2), 113–123. Google Scholar
  3. Bajari, P., & Hortacsu, A. (2003). The winner’s curse, reserve prices and endogenous entry: Empirical insights from eBay auctions. RAND Journal of Economics, 33(2), 329–355. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bapna, R. (2003). When snipers become predators: Can mechanism design save online auctions? Communications of the ACM, 46(12), 152–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bapna, R., Goes, P., & Gupta, A. (2003). Replicating online Yankee auctions to analyze auctioneers’ and bidders’ strategies. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 244–268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bapna, R., Jank, W., & Shmueli, G. (2004). Price formation and its dynamics in online auctions (Working paper). Department of Operations and Information Management, University of Maryland. Available online: http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/ceme/statistics/auctionDynamics.pdf.
  7. de Carvalho, R. A., & Costa, H. G. (2007). Application of an integrated decision support process for supplier selection. Enterprise Information Systems, 1(2), 197–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Easley, R. F., & Tenorio, R. (2004). Jump bidding strategies in internet auctions. Management Science, 50(10), 1407–1419. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greenwald, A. (2003). The 2002 trading agent competition: An overview of agent strategies. AI Magazine, 24(1), 83–91. Google Scholar
  10. Gregg, D. G., & Walczak, S. (2006). Auction advisor: Online auction recommendation and bidding decision support system. Decision Support Systems, 41(2), 449–471. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gregg, D. G., & Walczak, S. (2003). E-commerce auction agents and online-auction dynamics. Electronic Markets, 13(2), 242–250. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. He, M. H., Jennings, N. R., & Prgel-Bennett, A. (2004). An adaptive bidding agent for multiple English auctions: A neuro-fuzzy approach. In: Proceedings of IEEE conference on fuzzy systems, Budapest, Hungary (pp. 1519–1524). Google Scholar
  13. Ito, T., Fukuta, N., Shintani, T., & Sycara, K. (2000). Biddingbot: A multiagent support system for cooperative bidding in multiple auctions. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on multi-agent systems, Boston, MA (pp. 399–400). Los Alamitos: IEEE Comput. Soc. Google Scholar
  14. Kauffman, R. J., & Wood, C. (2006). Doing their bidding: An empirical examination of factors that affect a buyer’s utility in internet auctions. Information Technology and Management, 7(3), 171–190. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kwang, M. S., & Wong, E. (2001). Toward market-driven agents for electronic auction. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 31(6), 474–484. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kwon, R. H., Anandalingam, G., & Ungar, L. H. (2005). Iterative combinatorial auctions with bidder-determined combinations. Management Science, 51(3), 407–418. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. LeBaron, B. (2000). Agent based computational finance: Suggested readings and early research. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 24(5–7), 679–702. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Liu, Y. X., Goodwin, R., & Koenig, S. (2003). Risk-averse auction agents. In Proceedings of the 2nd international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS), Melbourne, Australia (pp. 353–360). Google Scholar
  19. Luo, J., Xu, L., Jamont, J.-P., Zeng, L., & Shi, Z. (2007). Flood decision support system on agent grid: Method and implementation. Enterprise Information Systems, 1(1), 49–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lucking-Reiley, D. (2000). Auctions on the internet: What’s being auctioned and how? Journal of Industrial Economics, 48(3), 227–252. Google Scholar
  21. Matsubara, S. (2000). Accelerating information revelation in ascending-bid auctions: Avoiding last minute bidding. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM conference on electronic commerce, Tampa, Florida, USA (pp. 29–37). Google Scholar
  22. Matsumoto, Y., & Fujita, S. (2001). An auction agent for bidding on combinations of items. In Proceedings of the fifth international conference on autonomous agents, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (pp. 552–559). Google Scholar
  23. Nwana, H. S., Rosenschein, J., Sandholm, T., Sierra, C., Maes, P., & Guttmann, R. (1998). Agent-mediated electronic commerce: Issues, challenges and some viewpoints. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on autonomous agents, Minneapolis (pp. 189–196). Google Scholar
  24. Ockenfels, A., & Roth, A. E. (2002). The timing of bids in internet auctions: Market design, bidder behavior, and artificial agents. AI Magazine, 23(3), 79–88. Google Scholar
  25. Ogston, E., & Vassiliadis, S. (2002). A peer-to-peer agent auction. In First international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (AAMAS), Bologna, Italy (pp. 151–159). Google Scholar
  26. Parkes, D. C. (1999). iBundle: An efficient ascending price bundle auction. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM conference on electronic commerce, Denver, Colorado, USA (pp. 148–157). Google Scholar
  27. Pekeč, A., & Rothkopf, M. H. (2003). Combinatorial auction design. Management Science, 49(11), 1485–1503. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pinker, E. J., Seidmann, A., & Vakrat, Y. (2003). Managing online auctions: Current business and research issues. Management Science, 49(11), 1457–1484. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rasmusson, L., & Jason, S. (1999). Agents, self-interest and electronic markets. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 14(2), 143–150. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Roth, A. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2002). Last minute bidding and the rules for ending second-price auctions: Theory and evidence from a natural experiment on the internet. American Economic Review, 92, 1093–1103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sandholm, T. (1999). Approaches to winner determination in combinatorial auctions. Decision Support Systems, 28(1–2), 165–176. Google Scholar
  32. Sloman, S. A. (1996). The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vakrat, Y., & Seidmann, A. (2000). Implications of the bidders’ arrival process on the design of online auctions. In Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii international conference on systems science, USA (p. 6015). Google Scholar
  34. Vulkan, N. (1999). Economic implications of agent technology and e-commerce. The Economic Journal, 109(453), F67–F90. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilcox, R. T. (2000). Experts and amateurs: The role of experience in internet auctions. Marketing Letters, 11(4), 363–374. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang, Y., & Bhattacharyya, S. (2007). Effective of Q-learning as a tool for calibrating agent-based supply network models. Enterprise Information Systems, 1(2), 217–233. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information SystemsCity University of Hong KongKowloon TongHong Kong
  2. 2.Department of Information SystemsNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  3. 3.School of ManagementXi’an Jiaotong UniversityXi’anChina

Personalised recommendations