Matchmaking in Multi-attribute Auctions using a Genetic Algorithm and a Particle Swarm Approach

  • Simone A. Ludwig
  • Thomas Schoene
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 383)


An electronic market platform usually requires buyers and sellers to exchange offers-to-buy and offers-to-sell. The goal of this exchange is to reach an agreement on the suitability of closing transactions between buyers and sellers. This paper investigates multi-attribute auctions, and in particular the matchmaking of multiple buyers and sellers based on five attributes. The proposed approaches are based on a Genetic Algorithm (GA) and a Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) approach to match buyers with sellers based on five attributes as closely as possible. Our approaches are compared with an optimal assignment algorithm called the Munkres algorithm, as well as with a simple random approach. Measurements are performed to quantify the overall match score and the execution time. Both, the GA as well as the PSO approach show good performance, as even though not being optimal algorithms, they yield a high match score when matching the buyers with the sellers. Furthermore, both algorithms take less time to execute than the Munkres algorithm, and therefore, are very attractive for matchmaking in the electronic market place, especially in cases where large numbers of buyers and sellers need to be matched efficiently.


Genetic Algorithm Particle Swarm Optimization Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm Genetic Algorithm Algorithm Random Approach 
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.
    Ströbel, M., Stolze, M.: A Matchmaking Component for the Discovery of Agreement and Negotiation Spaces in Electronic Markets. Group Decision and Negotiation 11, 165–181 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guttman, R.H., Maes, P.: Cooperative vs. Competitive Multi-Agent Negotiations in Retail Electronic Commerce. In: Klusch, M., Weiss, G. (eds.) CIA 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1435, p. 135. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hoffner, Y., Schade, A.: Co-operation, Contracts, Contractual Matchmaking and Binding. In: Proceedings EDOC 1998, pp. 75–86. IEEE, Piscataway (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ströbel, M.: Communication design for electronic negotiations on the basis of XML schema. In: Proceedings of the tenth international conference on World Wide Web, Hong Kong, May 01-05, pp. 9–20 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stroebel, M., Weinhardt, C.: The Montreal Taxonomy for Electronic Negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation 12(2), 143–164 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kumar, M., Feldman, S.: Internet auctions. In: Proceedings of the 3rd USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, Boston, USA, pp. 49–60 (1998)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koppius, O.: Electronic multidimensional auctions: Trading mechanisms and applications. In: Homburg, V., Janssen, M., Wolters, M. (eds.) Edispuut Workshop 1998: Electronic Commerce — Crossing Boundaries. The Netherlands, Rotterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Koppius, O., Kumar, M., van Heck, E.: Electronic multidimensional auctions and the role of information feedback. In: Hansen, H.R., Bichler, M., Mahrer, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2000), Vienna, Austria, pp. 461–468. Association for Information Systems (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bichler, M., Kaukal, M., Segev, A.: Multi-attribute auctions for electronic procurement. In: Proceedings of the 1st IBM IAC Workshop on Internet Based Negotiation Technologies, Yorktown Heights, USA, pp. 154–165 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bichler, M.: Trading financial derivatives on the web - an approach towards automating negotiations on OTC markets. Information Systems Frontiers 1(4), 401–414 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bichler, M., Werthner, H.: Classification framework for multidimensional, multi-unit procurement auctions. In: Proceedings of the DEXA Workshop on Negotiations in Electronic Markets, Greenwich, U.K, pp. 1003–1009 (2000)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stroebel, M.: Design of roles and protocols for electronic negotiations. Electronic Commerce Research Journal, Special Issue on Market Design 1(3), 335–353 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lo, G., Kersten, G.: Negotiation in electronic commerce: Integrating negotiation support and software agent technologies. In: Proceedings of the 29th Atlantic Schools of Business Conference (1999)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benyoucef, M., Alj, H., Vezeau, M., Keller, R.K.: Combined negotiations in e-commerce: Concepts and architecture. Electronic Commerce Research Journal - Special issue on Theory and Application of Electronic Market Design 1(3), 277–299 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuokka, D., Harada, L.: Integrating information via matchmaking. Journal of Intel ligent Information Systems 6(2-3), 261–279 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Subrahmanian, V.S., Bonatti, P., Dix, J., Eiter, T., Kraus, S., Ozcan, F., Ross, R.: Heterogenous Agent Systems. MIT Press (2000); ISBN: 0262194368Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sycara, K., Widoff, S., Klusch, M., Lu, J.: Larks: Dynamic matchmaking among heterogeneous software agents in cyberspace. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 5, 173–203 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Veit, D., Müller, J.P., Schneider, M., Fiehn, B.: Matchmaking for autonomous agents in electronic marketplaces. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Autonomous Agents AGENTS 2001, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 65–66. ACM, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Holland, J.H.: Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor (1975)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kennedy, J., Eberhart, R.C.: Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks (1995)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Clerc, M.: Discrete particle swarm optimization – illustrated by the traveling salesmen problem. In: New Optimization Techniques in Engineering. Springer, Heidelburg (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kuhn, H.W.: The Hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval Research Logistics 52(1) (2005)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kuhn, H.W.: The hungarian method for solving the assignment problem. Naval Research Logistics 2, 83 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Munkres, J.: Algorithms for the Assignment and Transportation Problems. Journal of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 5, 32 (1957)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bourgeois, F., Lassalle, J.C.: An extension of the munkres algorithm for the assignment problem to rectangular matrices. Commun. ACM 14(12) (1971)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nedas, K.: Munkres’ (Hungarian) Algorithm, Java implementation (2008), (last retrieved on March 2009)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceNorth Dakota State UniversityFargoU.S.A.
  2. 2.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations