|
ABSTRACT
Service composition is the act of taking several component products or services, and bundling them together to meet the needs of a given customer. In the future, service composition will play an increasingly important role in e-commerce, and automation will be desirable to improve speed and efficiency of customer response. In this paper, we consider a service composition agent that both buys components and sells services through auctions. It buys component services by participating in many English auctions. It sells composite services by participating in Request-for-Quotes reverse auctions. Because it does not hold a long-term inventory of component services, it must take risks; it must make offers in reverse auctions prior to purchasing all the components needed, and must bid in English auctions prior to having a guaranteed customer for the composite good. We present algorithms that is able to manage this risk, by appropriately bidding/offering in many auctions and reverse auctions simultaneously. The algorithms will withdraw from one set of possible auctions and move to another set if this will produce a better-expected outcome, but will effectively manage the risk of accidentally winning outstanding bids/offers during the withdrawal process. We illustrate the behavior of these algorithms through a set of worked examples.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
P. Anthony, W. Hall, V. Dang, and N.R. Jennings. Autonomous agents for participating in multiple on-line auctions. In Proc. IJCAI Workshop on E-Business and the Intelligent Web, pages 54--64, 2001.
|
| |
2
|
|
 |
3
|
|
| |
4
|
D. Cliff and J. Bruten. Less than human: Simple adaptive trading agents for CDA markets. In Proc. of the 1998 Symposium on Computation in Economics, Finance, and Engineering: Economic Systems, 1998.
|
| |
5
|
P. Faratin, C. Sierra, and N. Jennings. Negotiation decision functions for autonomous agents. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 3-4(24):159--182, 1998.
|
| |
6
|
P. Garcia, E. Giminez, L. Godo, and J. Rodriguez-Aguilar. Possibilistic-based design of bidding strategies in electronic auctions. In Proc. 13th Biennial European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1998.
|
| |
7
|
S. Gjerstad and J. Dickhaut. Price formation in double auctions. Games and Economic Behaviour, 22(1):1--29, 1998.
|
| |
8
|
M. He and N. Jennings. Southamptontac: Designing a successful trading agent. In Proc $15^th$ European Conf. on AI (ECAI-2002), pages 8--12, 2002.
|
| |
9
|
M. He, H. Leung, and N. Jennings. A fuzzy logic based bidding strategy for autonomous agents in continuous double auctions. In IEEE. trans., 2002.
|
| |
10
|
T. Ito, N. Fukuta, T. Shintani, and K. Sycara. BiddingBot: A multiagent support system for cooperative bidding in multiple auctions. In Proc. $4^th$ Int. Conf. on Multi-Agent Systems, pages 182--189, 2000.
|
| |
11
|
N. R. Jennings, P. Faratin, M. J. Johnson, P. O. O'Brien, and M. E. Wiegand. Using intelligent agents to manage business processes. In First International Conference on the Practical Application of Intelligent Agents and Multi-Agent Technology (PAAM-96), pages 345--360, April 1996.
|
| |
12
|
B. Laasri, H. Laasri, S. Lander, and V. Lesser. Generic model for intelligent negotiating agents. International Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 2(1):291--317, 1992.
|
 |
13
|
|
| |
14
|
|
 |
15
|
|
| |
16
|
S. Parsons, C. Sierra, and N. R. Jennings. Agents that reason and negotiate by arguing. Journal of Logic and Computation, 8(3):261--292, 1998.
|
| |
17
|
|
 |
18
|
|
| |
19
|
C. Preist, A. Byde, C. Bartolini, and G. Piccinelli. Towards agent-based service composition through negotiation in multiple auctions. AISBJ, 1(1), 2001.
|
| |
20
|
|
 |
21
|
|
| |
22
|
J. Rosenschein and G. Zlotkin. Rules of Encounter. MIT Press, 1994.
|
 |
23
|
|
 |
24
|
|
| |
25
|
R. G. Smith. The Contract Net protocol: High level communication and control in a distributed problem solver. IEEE Transactions on Computing, 29(12):1104--1113, 1980.
|
 |
26
|
Peter Stone , Michael L. Littman , Satinder Singh , Michael Kearns, ATTac-2000: an adaptive autonomous bidding agent, Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Autonomous agents, p.238-245, May 2001, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
[doi> 10.1145/375735.376301]
|
| |
27
|
Peter Stone , Robert E. Schapire , János Csirik , Michael L. Littman , David A. McAllester, ATTac-2001: A Learning, Autonomous Bidding Agent, Revised Papers from the Workshop on Agent Mediated Electronic Commerce on Agent-Mediated Electronic Commerce IV, Designing Mechanisms and Systems, p.143-160, July 16, 2002
|
 |
28
|
|
| |
29
|
G. Tesauro and R. Das. High-performance bidding agents for the continuous double auction. In Proceedings of IJCAI workshop on Economic Agents, Models and Mechanisms, 2001.
|
| |
30
|
Michael P. Wellman , Amy Greenwald , Peter Stone , Peter R. Wurman, The 2001 trading agent competition, Eighteenth national conference on Artificial intelligence, p.935-941, July 28-August 01, 2002, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
|
REVIEW
"Maria L. Gini : Reviewer"
Presented in this paper are algorithms for software agents who buy components and sell services through auctions. The problem is important when an agent has to make decisions about what to buy at what price, prior to knowing if what was bought can
more...
|