There is an extensive body of literature concerning optimal bidding strategies for agents participating in single shot auctions for single, individually valued goods. However, it remains a largely open question how a bidder should formulate his bidding strategy when there is a sequence of auctions and, furthermore, there are complementarities in the valuation for the bundle of items acquired in the separate auctions. We investigate conditions for which adjusting the bidding horizon beyond the immediate auction is profitable for a bidder. We show how such a strategy, in the limit, reduces agents to zero marginal profits as predicted by the Bertrand economic theory. We support our experimental results by drawing a parallel to the nIPD.


Bidding Strategy Combinatorial Auction Online Auction Movement Cost Auction Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Alkemade, F., van Bragt, D.D.B., La Poutré, J.A.: Stabilization of tag-mediated interaction by sexual reproduction in an evolutionary agent system. Journal of Information Sciences 170(1), 101–119 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anthony, P., Hall, W., Dang, V.D., Jennings, N.R.: Autonomous agents for participating in multiple on-line auctions. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI) Workshop on E-Business and the Intelligent Web, pp. 54–64 (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Axelrod, R.: The Evolution of Co-operation. Basic Books, Inc., New York (1984)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boutilier, C., Goldszmidt, M., Sabata, B.: Continuous value function approximation for sequential bidding policies. In: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI 1999), pp. 81–90 (1999)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boutilier, C., Goldszmidt, M., Sabata, B.: Sequential auctions for the allocation of resources with complementarities. In: Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 1999), pp. 527–534 (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Byde, A., Preist, C., Jennings, N.R.: Decision procedures for multiple auctions. In: Autonomous Agents & Multiagent Systems, Part. 2, pp. 613–622. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cai, G., Wurman, P.R.: Monte Carlo approximation in incomplete-information, sequential-auction games. Decision Support Systems 39(2), 153–168 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Greenwald, A., Boyan, J.: Bidding under uncertainty: Theory and experiments. In: Proceedings of the Twentieth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 209–216 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Hemert, J.I., La Poutré, J.A.: Dynamic routing problems with fruitful regions: Models and evolutionary computation. In: Proceedings of the eigth conference on Parallel Problem Solving from Nature (PPSN VIII). LNCS, pp. 690–699. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Klemperer, P.: Auction theory: A guide to the literature. Journal of Economic Surveys 13(3), 227–286 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Krishna, V., Rosenthal, R.W.: Simultaneous auctions with synergies. Games and Economic Behavior 17(1), 1–31 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    MacKie-Mason, J., Osepayshvili, A., Reeves, D., Wellman, M.: Price prediction strategies for market-based scheduling. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (ICAPS 2004), pp. 244–252. AAAI Press, Menlo Park (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Redondo, F.: Game Theory and Economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sandholm, T.: IJCAI computers and thought award 2003, award talk writeup: Making markets and democracy work: A story of incentives and computing. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI 2003), pp. 1649–1671 (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stone, P., Schapire, R.E., Littman, M.L., Csirik, J.A., McAllester, D.: Decision-theoretic bidding based on learned density models in simultaneous, interacting auctions. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 19, 209–242 (2003)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vickrey, W.: Counterspeculation, auctions and competitive sealed tenders. Journal of Finance 16, 8–37 (1961)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yao, X., Darwen, P.J.: An experimental study of n-person iterated prisoner’s dilemma games. In: Evo Workshops, pp. 90–108 (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. J. ’t Hoen
    • 1
  • J. A. La Poutré
    • 2
  1. 1.Center for Mathematics and Computer Science (CWI)AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.TU EindhovenEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations