Advertisement

An Ant Colony Approach for the Winner Determination Problem

  • Abhishek Ray
  • Mario Ventresca
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10782)

Abstract

Combinatorial auctions are those where bidders can bid on bundles of items. These auctions can lead to more economically efficient allocations but determining the winners is an NP-complete problem. In this paper, we propose an ant colony technique for approximating solutions to hard instances of this problem. Hard instances are those that are unsolvable within reasonable time by CPLEX and have more than 1000 bids on 500 or more unique items. Such instances occur in real world applications such as 4th Party Logistics (4PL) auctions, online resource time sharing auctions and the sale of spectrum licenses by the Federal Communications Commission. We perform experiments on 10 such instances to show and compare the performance of the proposed approach to CPLEX (Branch-and-Bound), stochastic greedy search, random walk and a memetic algorithm. Results indicate that in a given runtime, CPLEX results lie within the third quartile of the values generated using our approach for 3 of 10 of the instances. In addition, CPLEX results are on average \(0.24\%\) worse than best values reported using our approach for 5 of 10 instances. Further, our approach performs statistically significantly better (\(p< 0.01\)) than other heuristics on all instances.

Keywords

Ant colony Auctions Winner determination 

References

  1. 1.
    Bichler, M., Gupta, A., Ketter, W.: Research commentary - designing smart markets. Inf. Syst. Res. 21(4), 688–699 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dorigo, M., Süttzle, T.: The ant colony optimization metaheuristic: algorithms, applications, and advances. In: Glover, F., Kochenberger, G.A. (eds.) Handbook of Metaheuristics. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol. 57, pp. 251–286. Springer, Boston (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1007/0-306-48056-5_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gan, R., Guo, Q., Chang, H., Yi, Y.: Ant colony optimization for winner determination in combinatorial auctions. In: Third International Conference on Natural Computation, ICNC 2007, vol. 4, pp. 441–445. IEEE, August 2007Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gutjahr, W.J.: A graph-based ant system and its convergence. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 16(8), 873–888 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stutzle, T., Hoos, H.: MAX-MIN ant system and local search for the traveling salesman problem. In: IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 309–314. IEEE, April 1997Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sandholm, T., Suri, S., Gilpin, A., Levine, D.: CABOB: a fast optimal algorithm for winner determination in combinatorial auctions. Manag. Sci. 51(3), 374–390 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lau, H.C., Goh, Y.G.: An intelligent brokering system to support multi-agent Web-based 4/sup th/-party logistics. In: Proceedings of 14th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, ICTAI 2002, pp. 154–161. IEEE (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sandholm, T.: Algorithm for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions. Artif. Intell. 135(1–2), 1–54 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sandholm, T., Suri, S., Gilpin, A., Levine, D.: Winner determination in combinatorial auction generalizations. In: Proceedings of the First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems: Part 1, pp. 69–76. ACM, July 2002Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sandholm, T., Suri, S.: Improved algorithms for optimal winner determination in combinatorial auctions and generalizations. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp. 90–97, July 2000Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sandholm, T., Suri, S.: BOB: improved winner determination in combinatorial auctions and generalizations. Artif. Intell. 145(1–2), 33–58 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fujishima, Y., Leyton-Brown, K., Shoham, Y.: Taming the computational complexity of combinatorial auctions: optimal and approximate approaches. In: IJCAI, vol. 99, pp. 548–553, July 1999Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leyton-Brown, K., Shoham, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: An algorithm for multi-unit combinatorial auctions. In: AAAI/IAAI pp. 56–61, July 2000Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rothkopf, M.H., Peke, A., Harstad, R.M.: Computationally manageable combinational auctions. Manag. Sci. 44(8), 1131–1147 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Andersson, A., Tenhunen, M., Ygge, F.: Integer programming for combinatorial auction winner determination. In: Proceedings of Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems, pp. 39–46. IEEE (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Holland, A., O’Sullivan, B.: Robust solutions for combinatorial auctions. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 183–192. ACM, June 2005Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guo, Y., Lim, A., Rodrigues, B., Zhu, Y.: Heuristics for a bidding problem. Comput. Oper. Res. 33(8), 2179–2188 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hoos, H.H., Boutilier, C.: Solving combinatorial auctions using stochastic local search. In: AAAI/IAAI, pp. 22–29, July 2000Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Boughaci, D., Benhamou, B., Drias, H.: Local search methods for the optimal winner determination problem in combinatorial auctions. J. Math. Model. Algorithms 9(2), 165–180 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boughaci, D., Benhamou, B., Drias, H.: A memetic algorithm for the optimal winner determination problem. Soft Comput.-Fusion Found. Methodol. Appl. 13(8), 905–917 (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dorigo, M., Maniezzo, V., Colorni, A., Maniezzo, V.: Positive feedback as a search strategy (1991)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dorigo, M., Di Caro, G.: Ant colony optimization: a new meta-heuristic. In: Proceedings of the 1999 Congress on Evolutionary Computation, CEC 1999, vol. 2, pp. 1470–1477. IEEE (1999)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gutjahr, W.J.: A generalized convergence result for the graph-based ant system metaheuristic. Probab. Eng. Inf. Sci. 17(4), 545–569 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sttzle, T., Hoos, H.H.: MAX-MIN ant system. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 16(8), 889–914 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Leyton-Brown, K., Pearson, M., Shoham, Y.: Towards a universal test suite for combinatorial auction algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 66–76. ACM, October 2000Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Alidaee, B., Kochenberger, G., Lewis, K., Lewis, M., Wang, H.: A new approach for modeling and solving set packing problems. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 186(2), 504–512 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Porter, D.P.: The effect of bid withdrawal in a multi-object auction. Rev. Econ. Des. 4(1), 73–97 (1999)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wilson, D.G., Rudin, B.D.: Introduction to the IBM optimization subroutine library. IBM Syst. J. 31(1), 4–10 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Krannert School of ManagementPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.School of Industrial EngineeringPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations