Electronic Commerce Research

, Volume 7, Issue 3–4, pp 221–263 | Cite as

Specification and execution of composite trading activities

  • Yain-Whar Si
  • David Edmond
  • Marlon Dumas
  • Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede
Article

Abstract

With the growing number of trading opportunities available online, software tools designed to act on behalf of human traders are increasingly being used to automate trading activities. The next logical step in this evolution is the automation of composite trading activities designed to fulfill complex user goals and requirements. In this paper, we describe a model for specifying composite trading activities involving concurrent and interrelated negotiations with multiple parties and heterogeneous protocols. The model supports the specification of several types of constraints, such as the number of required successful negotiations, the limit price for the items to be traded, and the temporal constraints imposed by all trading parties. In order to guide the execution of the trading activities, we describe a novel planning and execution model for composite trading activities which is designed to maximize the expected utility of the user.

Keywords

Trading activities Negotiation protocols Concurrent negotiations Negotiation plans Expected utility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Auction Sentry. (2005). http://www.auction-sentry.com. Accessed 8 May 2005.
  2. 2.
    Auction Sniper. (2005). http://www.auctionsniper.com. Accessed 8 May 2005.
  3. 3.
    eSnipe. (2005). http://www.esnipe.com. Accessed 8 May 2005.
  4. 4.
    Proxy bidding. (2005). http://pages.ebay.com/help/buy/proxy-bidding.html. Accessed 8 May 2005.
  5. 5.
    Anthony, P., & Jennings, N. R. (2003). Developing a bidding agent for multiple heterogeneous auctions. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 2(3), 185–217. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Byde, A., Preist, C., & Jennings, N. R. (2002). Decision procedures for multiple auctions. In Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on autonomous agents and multi-agent systems (pp. 613–620), Bologna, Italy, July 2002. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dumas, M., Aldred, L., Governatori, G., ter Hofstede, A. H. M., & Russell, N. (2002). A probabilistic approach to automated bidding in alternative auctions. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on the World Wide Web (WWW) (pp. 99–108), Honolulu, HI, USA, May 2002. New York: ACM. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunn, P. C. (1989). Package trading. In W. H. Wagner (Ed.), The complete guide to securities transactions, enhancing investment performance and controlling costs (pp. 171–184), New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gimenez-Funes, E., Godo, L., Rodrguez-Aguilar, J. A., & Garcia-Calves, P. (1998). Designing bidding strategies for trading agents in electronic auctions. In Y. Demazeau (Ed.), Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on multi-agent systems (ICMAS’98) Paris, France. New York: IEEE. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gonen, R., & Lehmann, D. (2000). Optimal solutions for multi-unit combinatorial auctions: Branch and bound heuristics. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on electronic commerce (EC’00) (pp. 13–20), Minneapolis, MN, USA. New York: ACM. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hull, J. (1995). Introduction to futures and options markets (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall International. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iverson, K. E. (1962). A programming language. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keim, D. B., & Madhavan, A. (1996). The upstairs market for large-block transactions: analysis and measurement of price effects. The Review of Financial Studies, 9(1), 1–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Larson, K., & Sandholm, T. W. (2002). An alternating offers bargaining model for computationally limited agents. In Proceedings of the 1st international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 135–142), Bologna, Italy. New York: ACM. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lomuscio, A. R., Woodridge, M., & Jennings, N. R. (2001). A classification scheme for negotiation in electronic commerce. In F. Dignum, & C. Sierra (Eds.), Lecture notes in artificial intelligence: vol. 1991. Agent-mediated electronic commerce: the European AgentLink perspective (pp. 19–33). Berlin: Springer. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Matsumoto, Y., & Fujita, S. (2001). An auction agent for bidding on combinations of items. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on autonomous agents (AGENTS’01) (pp. 552–559), Montreal, Canada. New York: ACM. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Michael, S., & Christof, W. (2003). The Montreal taxonomy for electronic negotiations. Journal of Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(2), 143–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Milgrom, P. (1989). Auctions and bidding: A primer. Journal of Economics Perspectives, 3(3), 3–22. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nguyen, T. D., & Jennings, N. R. (2004). Coordinating multiple concurrent negotiations. In Proceedings of the 3rd international conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems (AAMAS) (pp. 1064–1071), New York, USA, July 2004. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    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
  21. 21.
    Preist, C., Byde, A., & Bartolini, C. (2001). Economic dynamics of agents in multiple auctions. In Proceedings of the 5th international conference on autonomous agents (AGENTS’01) (pp. 545–551), Montreal, Canada, June 2001. New York: ACM. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rahwan, I., Kowalczyk, R., & Pham, H. H. (2002). Intelligent agents for automated one-to-many e-commerce negotiation. In Proceedings of the 25th Australasian computer science conference (ACSC2002) (pp. 197–204), Melbourne, Australia, January 2002. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosenschein, J. S., & Zlotkin, G. (1994). Rules of encounter: designing conventions for automated negotiation among computers. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roth, A. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2002). Last-minute bidding and the rules for ending second-price auctions: evidence from eBay and Amazon auctions on the Internet. The American Economic Review, 92(4), 1093–1103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sandholm, T. W. (1999). An algorithm for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions. In T. Dean (Ed.), Proceedings of the 16th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI-99) (pp. 542–547). Stockholm: Kaufmann. Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sandholm, T. W. (1999). Distributed rational decision making. In Weiss, G. (Ed.), Multi-agent systems: a modern introduction to distributed artificial intelligence (pp. 201–258). Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shehory, O. (2002). Optimal bidding in multiple concurrent auctions. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 11(3&4), 315–327. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Si, Y.-W., Edmond, D., Dumas, M., & ter Hofstede, A. H. M. (2005). Specification and execution of composite trading activities (Technical Report FIT-TR-2003-08). Centre for Information Technology Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, December 2003. Available from http://www.bpm.fit.qut.edu.au/about/docs/CompositeTradingActivities.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2005.
  30. 30.
    Si, Y.-W., Edmond, D., ter Hofstede, A. H. M., & Dumas, M. (2003). A model for the configurable composition and synchronisation of complex trading activities. In Proceedings of the 2003 ACM symposium on applied computing (pp. 595–602), Melbourne, FL, USA, March 2003. New York: ACM. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Si, Y.-W., Edmond, D., ter Hofstede, A. H. M., & Dumas, M. (2003). Property propagation rules for prioritising and synchronising trading activities. In Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE conference on e-commerce (CEC’03) (pp. 246–255), Newport Beach, CA, USA, June 2003. New York: IEEE. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Si, Y.-W., Edmond, D., ter Hofstede, A. H. M., & Dumas, M. (2005). Orchestrating interrelated trading activities. International Journal of Business Process Integration and Management (IJBPIM), 1(1), 12–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Si, Y.-W., Edmond, D., ter Hofstede, A. H. M., Dumas, M., & Chong, C. U. (2005). Specification of composite trading activities in supply chain management. In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE international conference on e-technology, e-commerce and e-service 2005 (EEE-05) (pp. 315–322), Hong Kong, China, March 2005. New York: IEEE. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tate, C. (1990). Understanding options trading in Australia. Information Australia. Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wellman, M. P., Greenwald, A., Stone, P., & Wurman, P. R. (2002). The 2001 trading agent competition. In Proceedings of the 14th annual conference on innovative applications of artificial intelligence (IAAI-02) (pp. 935–941), Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Winoto, P., McCalla, G., & Vassileva, J. (2002). An extended alternating-offers bargaining protocol for automated negotiation in multi-agent systems. In R. Meersman, & Z. Tari (Eds.), Lecture notes in computer science : Vol. 2519. Proceedings of the 10th international conference on cooperative information systems (CoopIS’2002) (pp. 179–194). Irvine: Springer. Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wurman, P. R., & Wellman, M. P. (2000). AkBA: A progressive, anonymous-price combinatorial auction. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on electronic commerce (EC’00) (pp. 21–29). Minneapolis, MN, USA, October 2000. New York: ACM. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yain-Whar Si
    • 1
    • 2
  • David Edmond
    • 2
  • Marlon Dumas
    • 2
  • Arthur H. M. ter Hofstede
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Science and TechnologyUniversity of MacauTaipaMacau
  2. 2.Faculty of Information TechnologyQueensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations