The structure and behaviour of the continuous double auction

The last decade has seen a shift in emphasis from centralised to decentralised systems to meet the demanding coordination requirements of today's complex computer systems. In such systems, the aim is to achieve effective decentralised control through autonomous software agents that perform local decision-making based on incomplete and imperfect information. Specifically, when the various agents interact, the system behaves as a computational ecology with no single agent coordinating their actions. In this thesis, we focus on one specific type of computational ecology, the Continuous Double Auction (CDA), and investigate market-oriented approaches to decentralised control. In particular, the CDA is a fixed-duration auction mechanism where multiple buyers and sellers compete to buy and sell goods, respectively, in the market, and where transactions can occur at any time whenever an offer to buy and an offer to sell match. Now, in such a market mechanism, the decentralised control is achieved through the decentralised allocation of resources, which, in turn, is an emergent behaviour of buyers and sellers trading in the market. The CDA was chosen, among the plenitude of auction formats available, because it allows efficient resource allocation without the need of a centralised auctioneer. Against this background, we look at both the structure and the behaviour of the CDA in our attempt to build an efficient and robust mechanism for decentralised control. We seek to do this for both stable environments, in which the market demand and supply do not change and dynamic ones in which there are sporadic changes (known as market shocks). While the structure of the CDA defines the agents' interactions in the market, the behaviour of the CDA is determined by what emerges when the buyers and sellers compete to maximise their individual profits. In more detail, on the structural aspect, we first look at how the market protocol of the CDA can be modified to meet desirable properties for the system (such as high market efficiency, fairness of profit distribution among agents and market stability). Second, we use this modified protocol to efficiently solve a complex decentralised task allocation problem with limited-capacity suppliers that have start-up production costs and consumers with inelastic demand. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the structure of this CDA variant is very efficient (an average of 80% and upto 90%) by evaluating the mechanism with very simple agent behaviours. In so doing, we emphasise the effect of the structure, rather than the behaviour, on efficiency. In the behavioural aspect, we first developed a multi-layered framework for designing strategies that autonomous agents can use for trading in various types of market mechanisms. We then use this framework to design a novel Adaptive-Aggressiveness (AA) strategy for the CDA. Specifically, our bidding strategy has both a short and a long-term learning mechanism to adapt its behaviour to changing market conditions and it is designed to be robust in both static and dynamic environments. Furthermore, we also developed a novel framework that uses a two-population evolutionary game theoretic approach to analyse the strategic interactions of buyers and sellers in the CDA. Finally, we develop effective methodologies for evaluating strategies for the CDA in both homogeneous and heterogeneous populations, within static and dynamic environments. We then evaluate the AA bidding strategy against the state of the art using these methodologies. By so doing, we show that, within homogeneous populations, the AA strategy outperformed the benchmarks, in terms of market efficiency, by up to 3.6% in the static case and 2.8% in the dynamic case. Within heterogeneous populations, based on our evolutionary game theoretic framework, we identify that there is a probability above 85% that the AA strategy will eventually be adopted by buyers and sellers in the market (for being more efficient) and, therefore, AA is also better than the benchmarks in heterogeneous populations as well.

[1]  Rajarshi Das,et al.  High-performance bidding agents for the continuous double auction , 2001, EC '01.

[2]  G. Tesauro,et al.  Analyzing Complex Strategic Interactions in Multi-Agent Systems , 2002 .

[3]  Charles A. Holt,et al.  Experimental Economics: Methods, Problems, and Promise , 1993 .

[4]  Yechiam Yemini,et al.  Selfish optimization in computer networks , 1981, 1981 20th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control including the Symposium on Adaptive Processes.

[5]  John A. Nelder,et al.  A Simplex Method for Function Minimization , 1965, Comput. J..

[6]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  A Risk-Based Bidding Strategy for Continuous Double Auctions , 2004, ECAI.

[7]  Elizabeth Sklar,et al.  Reducing price fluctuation in continuous double auctions through pricing policy and shout improvement , 2006, AAMAS '06.

[8]  D. Cliff ZIP60: Further Explorations in the Evolutionary Design of Online Auction Market Mechanisms , 2005 .

[9]  Gerald Tesauro,et al.  Strategic sequential bidding in auctions using dynamic programming , 2002, AAMAS '02.

[10]  NICHOLAS R. JENNINGS,et al.  An agent-based approach for building complex software systems , 2001, CACM.

[11]  Ann Nowé,et al.  Evolutionary game theory and multi-agent reinforcement learning , 2005, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[12]  C. Preist,et al.  Adaptive agents in a persistent shout double auction , 1998, ICE '98.

[13]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Market-Based Task Allocation Mechanisms for Limited-Capacity Suppliers , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[14]  Franco Zambonelli,et al.  Developing multiagent systems: The Gaia methodology , 2003, TSEM.

[15]  Jack L. Treynor,et al.  MUTUAL FUND PERFORMANCE* , 2007 .

[16]  S. Sunder Lower Bounds for Efficiency of Surplus Extraction in Double Auctions , 1992 .

[17]  R. McKelvey,et al.  Computation of equilibria in finite games , 1996 .

[18]  M. Nowak,et al.  Evolutionary game theory , 1995, Current Biology.

[19]  Michael Luck,et al.  Towards a layered approach for agent infrastructure: the right tools for the right job , 2001 .

[20]  Pere Garcia-Calvés,et al.  Designing bidding strategies for trading agents in electronic auctions , 1998, Proceedings International Conference on Multi Agent Systems (Cat. No.98EX160).

[21]  V. Smith An Experimental Study of Competitive Market Behavior , 1962, Journal of Political Economy.

[22]  E. Maasland,et al.  Auction Theory , 2021, Springer Texts in Business and Economics.

[23]  Rahul Simha,et al.  A Microeconomic Approach to Optimal Resource Allocation in Distributed Computer Systems , 1989, IEEE Trans. Computers.

[24]  F. Hayek The economic nature of the firm: The use of knowledge in society , 1945 .

[25]  Peter R. Wurman Guest Editor's Introduction: Dynamic Pricing in the Virtual Marketplace , 2001, IEEE Internet Comput..

[26]  D. Cliff Evolutionary Optimization of Parameter Sets for Adaptive Software-Agent Traders in Continuous Double Auction Markets , 2001 .

[27]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  Evolutionary Stability of Behavioural Types in the Continuous Double Auction , 2006, EUMAS.

[28]  Rajarshi Das,et al.  Agent-Human Interactions in the Continuous Double Auction , 2001, IJCAI.

[29]  Jörg P. Müller,et al.  Agent UML: A Formalism for Specifying Multiagent Software Systems , 2001, Int. J. Softw. Eng. Knowl. Eng..

[30]  Maria Fasli,et al.  Building Trading Agents: Challenges and Strategies , 2002, ECAI.

[31]  Bart Selman,et al.  A principled study of the design tradeoffs for autonomous trading agents , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[32]  Bernard Widrow,et al.  Adaptive switching circuits , 1988 .

[33]  D. Cliff Minimal-Intelligence Agents for Bargaining Behaviors in Market-Based Environments , 1997 .

[34]  Dhananjay K. Gode,et al.  Allocative Efficiency of Markets with Zero-Intelligence Traders: Market as a Partial Substitute for Individual Rationality , 1993, Journal of Political Economy.

[35]  Michael P. Wellman,et al.  Walverine: a Walrasian trading agent , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[36]  Michael P. Wellman,et al.  The 2001 trading agent competition , 2002, Electron. Mark..

[37]  Peter McBurney,et al.  An evolutionary game-theoretic comparison of two double-auction market designs , 2004, AAMAS'04.

[38]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Kasbah: An Agent Marketplace for Buying and Selling Goods , 1996, PAAM.

[39]  Elizabeth Sklar,et al.  Applying genetic programming to economic mechanism design: evolving a pricing rule for a continuous double auction , 2003, AAMAS '03.

[40]  John Dickhaut,et al.  Price Formation in Double Auctions , 2001, E-Commerce Agents.

[41]  Andrew Byde,et al.  Applying evolutionary game theory to auction mechanism design , 2003, EEE International Conference on E-Commerce, 2003. CEC 2003..

[42]  Nicholas R. Jennings,et al.  A Fuzzy-Logic Based Bidding Strategy for Autonomous Agents in Continuous Double Auctions , 2003, IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng..