A Coalition Structure-based Decision Method in B2B E-Commerce Model with Multiple-Items

  • Satoshi Takahashi
  • Tokuro Matsuo
Part of the Studies in Computational Intelligence book series (SCI, volume 383)


This paper proposes a new B2B electronic commerce model by using bidding information in double auctions. In B2B electronic commerce, buyers try to purchase in multiple items at the same time, since a buyer develops something products by using purchased items. Also suppliers have an incentive of making coalitions, since buyers want to purchase in multiple items. A mechanism designer has to consider an optimal mechanism which calculates an optimal matching between buyers and suppliers. But to find an optimal matching is very hard, since a mechanism calculates all combinations between buyers and suppliers. Consequently, we propose a calculation method which has two steps, first a mechanism determines winners of buyers’ side, then, determines coalitions and winners of suppliers by using the result of buyers’ side. This paper also discusses the improved method with dynamical mechanism design by using the bidding information. The auction protocol trees are expressed by all possible results of auctions. The result of each auction is recorded and stored with bidding data and conditions for subsequent auctions. Advantages of this paper are that each developer can procure the components to develop a certain item and tasks are allocated to suppliers effectively. The previous result of auction data can be available to shorten the period of winner determinations.


Coalition Structure Combinatorial Auction Social Surplus Double Auction Procurement Auction 
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.
    Friedman, D., Rust, J.: The Double Auction Market. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kothari, A., Parkes, D.C., Suri, S.: Approximately-strategyproof and tractable multi-unit auction. Decision Support System 39, 105–121 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Krishna, V.: Auction Theory. Academic Press (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leyton-Brown, K., Shoham, Y., Tennenholtz, M.: Bidding clubs: institutionalized collusion in auctions. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 253–259 (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Matsuo, T.: A reassuring mechanism design for traders in electronic group buying. Applied Artificial Intelligence 23, 1–15 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McAfee, P.R.: A dominant strategy double auction. Journal of Economic Theory 56, 434–450 (1992)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Milgrom, P.: Putting Auction Theory to Work. Cambridge University Press (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Myerson, R.B., Satterthwaite, M.A.: Efficient mechanism for bilateral trading. Journal of Economic Theory 29(2), 265–281 (1983)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nisan, N., Rosen, A.: Computationally feasible vcg mechanism. In: Proc. on 2nd ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce EC 2000, pp. 242–252 (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yokoo, M., Sakurai, Y., Matsubara, S.: The effect of false-name bids in combinatorial auctions: new fraud in internet auctions. Games and Economic Behavior 46, 174–188 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yokoo, M., Sakurai, Y., Matsubara, S.: Robust double auction protocol against fales-name bids. Decision Support System 39, 241–252 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of System & Information EngineeringUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Graduate School of Science & EngineeringYamagata UniversityYonezawaJapan

Personalised recommendations