Metaheuristic Approaches for the Winner Determination Problem in Combinatorial Auction
- 10 Citations
- 3.6k Downloads
Abstract
Many problems in combinatorial optimization are NP-Hard. This has forced researchers to explore meta-heuristic techniques for dealing with this class of complex problems and finding an acceptable solution in reasonable time.
In this chapter, we are interested in the winner determination problem (WDP) in combinatorial auction (CA). CA is an auction that allocates a set of many goods to bidders in the presence of substitutes and complements. The winner determination problem is a complex problem. It is the problem of finding winning bids that maximize the auctioneers revenue under the constraint that each good can be allocated to at most one bidder.
This chapter presents a computational experience regarding four well-known meta-heuristics (stochastic local search, tabu search, genetic algorithms andmemetic algorithms) for solving the winner determination problem (WDP). The purpose of this study is to evaluatethe performance of each one of the different techniques to solve the WDP in combinatorial auctions. The different methods are evaluated on various benchmark problems, and compared with the hybrid simulated annealing (SAGII) and Casanova. The computational experiments show that in general the metaheuristic approaches provide competitive results and find good quality solutions.
Keywords
Genetic Algorithm Tabu Search Memetic Algorithm Combinatorial Auction Stochastic Local SearchPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- 1.Anderson, A., Tenhunen, M., Ygge, F.: Integer programming for combinatorial auction winner determination. In: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems, pp. 39–46. IEEE Computer Society Press (July 2000)Google Scholar
- 2.Bean, J.C.: Genetics and random keys for sequencing and optimization. ORSA Journal of Computing 6(2), 154–160 (1994)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.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
- 4.Boughaci, D., Benhamou, B., Drias, H.: A memetic algorithm for the optimal winner determination problem. Soft Computing 13(8-9), 905–917 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Boughaci, D., Benhamou, B., Drias, H.: Stochastic Local Search for the Optimal Winner Determination Problem in Combinatorial Auctions. In: Stuckey, P.J. (ed.) CP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5202, pp. 593–597. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Boughaci, D., Drias, H., Benhamou, B.: Solving MAX-SAT problems using a Memetic Evolutionary Meta-Heuristic. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International conference on Cybernetics and Intelligent Systems, CIS 2004, pp. 480–484 (December 2004)Google Scholar
- 7.Collins, J., Sundareswara, R., Gini, M., Mobasher, B.: Bid Selection Strategies for Multi-Agent Contracting in the Presence of Scheduling Constraints. In: Moukas, A., Ygge, F., Sierra, C. (eds.) Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce II. LNCS, vol. 1788, pp. 113–130. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Fujishima, Y., Leyton-Brown, K., Shoham, Y.: Taming the computational complexity of combinatorial auctions: optimal and approximate approaches. In: Sixteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 48–53 (1999)Google Scholar
- 9.Goldberg, D.E.: Genetic Algorithms in search Optimization and Machine Learning. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham (1989)Google Scholar
- 10.Glover, F.: Future paths for integer programming and links to Artificial intelligence. Operational Search 31 (1986)Google Scholar
- 11.Glover, F.: “Tabu search”: Part I. ORSA, Journal on Computing (1989)Google Scholar
- 12.Guo, Y., Lim, A., Rodrigues, B., Zhu, Y.: Heuristics for a brokering set packing problem. In: Proceedings of Eighth International Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics, pp. 10–14 (2004)Google Scholar
- 13.Guo, Y., Lim, A., Rodrigues, B., Zhu, Y.: Heuristics for a bidding problem. Computers and Operations Research 33(8), 2179–2188 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Holland, A., O’sullivan, B.: Towards Fast Vickrey Pricing using Constraint Programming. Artificial Intelligence Review 21(3-4), 335–352 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Hoos, H.H., Boutilier, C.: Solving combinatorial auctions using stochastic local search. In: Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 22–29 (2000)Google Scholar
- 16.Lau, H.C., Goh, Y.G.: An intelligent brokering system to support multi-agent web-based 4th-party logistics. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, pp. 54–61 (2002)Google Scholar
- 17.Ishibuchi, H., Narukawa, K.: Some issues on the implementation of local search in evolutionary multiobjective optimization. In: Deb, K., et al. (eds.) GECCO 2004, Part I. LNCS, vol. 3102, pp. 1246–1258. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Ishibuchi, H., Yoshida, T., Murata, T.: Balance between genetic search and local search in memetic algorithms for multiobjective permutation flowshop scheduling. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 7(2), 204–223 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Leyton-Brown, K., Pearson, M., Shoham, Y.: Towards a universal test suite for combinatorial auction algorithms. In: ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce, pp. 66–76 (2000)Google Scholar
- 20.Leyton-Brown, K., Tennenholtz, M., Shoham, Y.: An Algorithm for Multi-Unit Combinatorial Auctions. In: Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Austin, Games 2000, Bilbao and ISMP 2000, Atlanta (2000)Google Scholar
- 21.McAfee, R., McMillan, P.J.: Auctions and bidding. Journal of Economic Literature 25, 699–738 (1987)Google Scholar
- 22.Moscato, P.: On Evolution, Search, Optimization, Genetic Algorithms and Martial Arts: Towards Memetic Algorithms. In: Caltech Concurrent Computation Program, C3P Report 826 (1989)Google Scholar
- 23.Nisan, N.: Bidding and allocation in combinatorial auctions. In: Proceedings of ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC 2000), pp. 1–12. ACM SIGecom, ACM Press, Minneapolis (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Rothkopf, M.H., Pekee, A., Ronald, M.: Computationally manageable combinatorial auctions. Management Science 44(8), 1131–1147 (1998)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Sandholm, T.: Algorithms for Optimal Winner Determination in Combinatorial Auctions. Artificial Intelligence 135(1-2), 1–54 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Sandholm, T., Suri, S., Gilpin, A., Levine, D.: CABoB: a fast optimal algorithm for combinatorial auctions. In: Proceedings of the International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 1102–1108 (2001)Google Scholar
- 27.Sandholm, T., Suri, S.: Improved Optimal Algorithm for Combinatorial Auctions and Generalizations. In: Proceedings of the 17th National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 90–97 (2000)Google Scholar
- 28.Sandholm, T.: Optimal Winner Determination Algorithms. In: Cramton, P., et al. (eds.) Combinatorial Auctions. MIT Press (2006)Google Scholar
- 29.de Vries, S., Vohra, R.: Combinatorial auctions a survey. INFORMS Journal of Computing 15, 284–309 (2003)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar