<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Multi-Agent Decision Support System for Supply Chain Management</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Yevgeniya Kovalchuk</string-name>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>Department of Computing and Electronic Systems University of Essex</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <abstract>
        <p>This paper presents an extended abstract of the author's doctoral research project on developing a multi-agent intelligent system for automatic managing supply chains. Supply chain management (SCM) is a very complex and dynamic environment. The doctoral work, which started in October 2005, is dedicated to finding better solutions for successful performance in the domain of real-time SCM.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>eol&gt;Supply Chain Management</kwd>
        <kwd>Trading Agents</kwd>
        <kwd>Decision Support Systems</kwd>
        <kwd>Multi-Agent Systems</kwd>
        <kwd>Prediction</kwd>
        <kwd>Learning</kwd>
        <kwd>Neural Networks</kwd>
        <kwd>Genetic Programming</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>1. INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>While running their business, enterprises usually deal with a
number of activities, such as: procurement, production,
warehouse management, selling, marketing, and customer
servicing among others. To help them to manage these activities,
organisations try to automate their business processes. Usually,
independent software and hardware solutions are used for each
of the activities. However in practice, all the activities are highly
connected and interdependent. To integrate some of them in a
single process is the task of supply chain management (SCM).
The SCM is concerned with negotiating with suppliers for raw
materials, competing for customer orders, managing inventory,
scheduling production, and delivering goods to customers. In
addition to its complexity, the SCM is also a time-constrained
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for
personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that
copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy
otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists,
requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
10th Int. Conf. on Electronic Commerce (ICEC) ’08 Innsbruck, Austria
Copyright 2008 ACM 978-1-60558-075-3/08/08 ...$5.00.
and ever-changing process, especially nowadays, when
enterprises move their business on-line. Taking into
consideration market globalisation, companies often run
distributed businesses, having suppliers and customers all over
the world. To deal with their contractors, organisations use the
Internet to participate in electronic commerce, where business
occurs very fast. To be able to react to all changes quickly,
companies are looking for applications that can support dynamic
strategies and adapt to new conditions in the environment. The
development of such an intelligent decision support system for
SCM is the main objective of the author’s PhD project.
Although the aim is to develop an integrated application for
SCM, due to its complexity, it is difficult to address all the
issues which can arise in the domain of SCM. To narrow the
research scope, the project is mainly focused on the demand part
of the supply chain. In particular, different methods for
predicting customer offer prices that could result in customer
orders (winning bidding prices) are explored and compared in
the system. The motivation is that expected findings not only
can improve a company’s performance while running its supply
chains, but could also be applied to financial markets and online
auctions where the task of predicting winnings bidding prices is
crucial. The TAC SCM game, where software agents developed
by different research groups can compete against each other in
the context of the SCM, is used as a test bed to evaluate the
proposed algorithms. This simulated environment was
implemented by Carnegie Mellon University and the Swedish
Institute of Computer Science (SICS) in 2003 as part of the
International Trading Agent Competition
(http://www.sics.se/tac/). The game is now probably the best
vehicle for testing SCM systems as it encapsulates many of the
tradeoffs that could be found in real SCM environments:
timeconstraints, network latency, unpredictable opponents, etc.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The description of
the TAC SCM scenario and overview of related work are
provided first. Then, the research approach followed is
presented. The results achieved so far along with the plans for
future work are given next. The paper closes with the
conclusions.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>2. THE TAC SCM SCENARIO</title>
      <p>
        According to the TAC SCM scenario [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref4">4</xref>
        ], there are six agents
competing in the game that act as product manufacturers (Figure
1). Their main tasks are to buy components from suppliers,
produce computers and sell them to customers. The behaviour of
both suppliers and customers are simulated by the TAC server.
      </p>
      <sec id="sec-2-1">
        <title>Income:</title>
        <p>+ Sales revenue
+ Bank interest</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-2">
        <title>1) Which RFQs to issue</title>
        <p>to which suppliers?</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-3">
        <title>2) Which supplier</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-4">
        <title>Offers to accept?</title>
        <p>1. RFQ</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-5">
        <title>3. Order</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-6">
        <title>2. Offer</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-7">
        <title>Reasonable quantity:</title>
        <p>production needs vs.
inventory cost?
$</p>
        <sec id="sec-2-7-1">
          <title>Bank +</title>
          <p>TAC SCM Agent</p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-8">
        <title>Which products to produce and when?</title>
        <p>Statement
of account
Expenses:
- Component costs
- Inventory costs
- Penalties for late delivery
- Overdraft penalties</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-9">
        <title>1) Which customer RFQs</title>
        <p>to answer, and which
price to set?</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-10">
        <title>2) Which PCs and when to deliver to customers?</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-11">
        <title>Reasonable quantity: customers needs vs. inventory cost?</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-12">
        <title>Component inventory: + Deliveries from suppliers - Production needs</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-13">
        <title>Product inventory: + Produced PCs - Deliveries to Customers</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-14">
        <title>Variable</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-15">
        <title>Supply</title>
        <sec id="sec-2-15-1">
          <title>Suppliers</title>
          <p>Supply
Market</p>
          <p>Reports
Component
Inventory
Reports
Component Inventiry
Production
Schedule
Product Inventory
Delivery
Schedule</p>
        </sec>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-16">
        <title>Limited</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-17">
        <title>Production</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-2-18">
        <title>Capacity</title>
        <p>Manufacturing
The game lasts for 220 simulated days, 15 seconds of real time
each. Each day an agent has to perform the following activities:
(i) component procurement, (ii) product sales, (iii) production
scheduling, and (iv) delivery scheduling. The aim of each
participating manufacturer is to maximize their profit: the agent
with the highest bank balance at the end of the game wins. The
agent spends money on buying components, paying a storage
cost for keeping an inventory of components and PCs, paying
penalties for late deliveries of customer orders, and for bank
overdrafts. The income of the agent consists of the revenue from
PCs sales and interest on positive bank balance.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>3. RELATED WORK</title>
      <p>The TAC SCM community involves many research groups
throughout the world. Each team investigates different issues
within the SCM domain and develops various methods to tackle
them. A number of works have been dedicated to the problem of
finding optimal prices to offer customers in response to their
requests. As this problem correlates with the objectives of the
author’s PhD thesis, the overview of these works is presented
here.</p>
      <p>
        The methods applied by different agents to solve the issue can
be divided into two major categories. The first group of agents
estimates the winning price for each RFQ and assumes that this
price would result in an order [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5 ref7 ref9">5, 7, 9</xref>
        ]. The second group
predicts for each possible bidding price the probability that it is
going to be accepted [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref10 ref11 ref12 ref14">1, 10, 11, 12, 14</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>
        An overview of the strategies applied to the problem of finding
optimal offer prices up to 2004 is provided in [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
        ]. The paper
also presents the comparison of different learning algorithms for
Demand
Market
      </p>
      <p>Reports
1. RFQ</p>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>3. Order</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>2. Offer</title>
        <p>Product
Inventory
Reports</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-3">
        <title>Competitor Agents</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-4">
        <title>Variable</title>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-5">
        <title>Demand</title>
        <p>$ $
$</p>
        <p>
          $
Customers
accomplishing the task in the context of the TAC SCM
environment. Specifically, the following methods were
analyzed: neural network with a single hidden layer and using
back propagation, M5 regression trees, M5 regression trees
boosted with additive regression, decision stumps (single-level
decision trees) boosted with additive regression, J48 decision
trees, J48 decision trees boosted with AdaBoost and BoosTexter
[20, 21], support vector machines, naïve Bayes, and k-nearest
neighbours. Their experimental results showed that M5 trees
and BoosTexter give the minimum root mean squared error.
In their up-to-date versions in addition to the above mentioned
methods, the TAC SCM agents also use other techniques. In
particular, SouthamptonSCM [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
          ] applies a fuzzy reasoning
inference mechanism to determine offer prices according to the
agent’s inventory level, the market demand and the time in the
game. TacTex uses additive regression with decision stumps
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref13">13</xref>
          ]. In the earlier version of the agent, the developers used
linear regression on six data points to generate a linear function
which is modified then by the day factor [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref14">14</xref>
          ]. The day factor
measures the effect of the due date on offer acceptance. A
similar approach is implemented in Botticelli [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
          ] and CMieux
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref2">2</xref>
          ]. The latter computes a linear least squares fit for the selling
prices of each product over the past several game days.
Additionally, the agent enforces lower and upper bounds on the
predictions to ensure that the prediction remains relatively
conservative. The agent maintains the probability distribution
for each PC type mapping bidding prices to the likelihood of
winning orders with these prices. The distributions are learned
off-line using data from previously played games to build a
regression tree. The developers of the agent showed that under
certain assumptions this pricing problem can be reduced to the
continuous knapsack problem [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1">1</xref>
          ]. Mertacor [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ] selected the
M5 data mining algorithm applied to historical data from past
games in order to choose which attributes influence offer prices.
It also uses two on-line modelling mechanisms in order to
handle unexpected circumstances that may arise with regard to
selling prices. The agent applies the k-Nearest Neighbours
algorithm then to find the probability of offer acceptance for
each bid placed. The probability of winning customer offers is
also used in the bidding strategies implemented by MinneTAC
[
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10">10</xref>
          ] and DeepMaize [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
          ]. RedAgent [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref9">9</xref>
          ] uses an internal
marketplace structure with competing bidders to set offer prices.
The agent computes offer prices as a sum of 3 terms: a base
price of the PC, an estimated discounted profit for the product
(the difference between base price and order price, discounted
according to the number of days left until the order expires), and
a discounted penalty. PackaTAC [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref5">5</xref>
          ] sets prices according to the
market state taking into consideration the lowest and highest
previous day prices and the current demand level.
        </p>
        <p>
          According to [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
          ] all the aforementioned methods do not take
into consideration market conditions that are not directly
observable. The authors propose a clustering based approach to
identify the market regime and predict market changes. They use
a Gaussian Mixture Model to represent the probabilities of
market prices that allows the determination of the probability of
receiving an order in different regimes for different prices. The
authors assume the following factors which correlate with
market regimes: the finished goods inventory of other agents;
the ratio of offer to demand; and normalized price over time.
        </p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>4. RESEARCH APPROACH</title>
      <p>To deal with the complexity of the SCM domain, a multi-agent
approach is applied to design the system. This allows to break
the whole system down into separate building blocks, each
concentrating on a particular part of the supply chain. By
replacing one building block with another and by combining
them in different ways, different versions of the system can be
created in order to check how separate algorithms affect its
overall performance. The system includes the following agents:
Manager, Demand Agent, Supply Agent, Inventory Agent,
Production Agent, and Delivery Agent. The Manager agent is
responsible for the communication with the external contractors
(suppliers, customers, bank, etc.), as well as managing all other
agents. The Demand Agent decides which customer RFQs to
answer and with what price. The remit of the Supply Agent is
the procurement of low cost components on time from suppliers;
the agent tracks the supplier market in order to choose the
suppliers with lower prices and lower level of suspended
deliveries. The Inventory Agent manages the component and
PCs stocks in order to satisfy the needs of the Production and
Delivery Agents while at the same time minimising holding
costs. The Production Agent is responsible for scheduling
current production and projecting production for the future.
Finally, the Delivery Agent deals with delivering PCs to
customers according to their orders and on time to prevent
penalties.</p>
      <p>To model the agents’ behaviour, different techniques are used in
the system, such as: constraint satisfaction, planning, logical
rules, and online adjustments. The majority of the algorithms are
based on simple heuristics. However, testing the system in the
TAC SCM game showed that these algorithms do not perform
well against stronger agents developed by other research teams.
To improve the performance of the system, a predictive
approach is required. According to this, a number of predictive
algorithms are implemented in the Demand part of the SCM that
deals with selling products to customers. The most crucial
problem here is of predicting customer winning bidding prices.
More specifically, a customer sends requests for quotes (RFQs)
indicating which products, in what quantity and for when he
wants them. The customer also indicates the reserve price – the
highest price he is willing to pay for the product. Competing
agents answer these customer RFQs with their offers specifying
the bidding prices they are willing to offer to the customer. For
each RFQ, the customer chooses the lowest price proposed by
all manufacturers and places an order. So the problem here is to
set optimal customer offer prices, which should be high enough
to allow for profit and at the same time low enough to be
accepted by customers.</p>
      <p>So far, 3 different strategies have been developed to tackle the
problem. According to the first strategy, the system predicts
bidding prices for each customer RFQ which will more probably
result in customer orders. The predictions are based on the
current market situation and also on RFQs’ details. 3 algorithms
based on the Neural Network (NN) learning technique are
implemented to perform the forecasting. In particular, for each
algorithm a set of ensembles of 3-layered NNs for every product
available on the market are constructed; each NN in the product
ensemble predicts the probability that the winning bidding price
will be in the price interval assigned to the ensemble. The
algorithms differ in the number of inputs they consider and their
methods for input normalization. The Back-propagation
algorithm and sigmoid function as the activation function are
used to train the NNs.</p>
      <p>The second strategy for deciding on offer prices is to predict the
lowest order prices for each product based on the time series of
these prices. All TAC SCM competitors get daily market
reports, where the lowest order prices proposed by all agents on
the previous day for each product available on the market are
specified. Using the previous values of these prices, their values
for one and ten days in the future are predicted. The Neural
Networks and Genetic Programming (GP) learning techniques
are used to design 33 different models of predictors. Apart form
the difference in the learning technique they use, the models also
differ in their data transformation and normalization methods
applied over inputs, and also the number of observables
considered in the time series.</p>
      <p>Finally, the third strategy implemented in the Demand Agent is
to model the competitors’ behaviour and to predict their bidding
prices according to the models evolved. Having predicted prices
of its competitors, the agent can bid just below them and thus
win customer orders. Again, the NN and GP learning techniques
are used and 4 different algorithms are developed to deal with
the task. The algorithms differ in their approaches for selecting
features to model competitors’ behaviour.</p>
      <p>To evaluate the proposed approaches and algorithms, a number
of games were played in the TAC SCM simulated environment.
Different combinations of participant agents were used. In some
games, the competitors were different versions of own agent.
For other games, highly competitive agents developed by other
TAC SCM participants were run. Binary code of these agents is
available from the TAC web-site repository. In order to decide
on the most successful strategies to follow in each part of the
supply chain, the game results were compared in terms of (a)
overall scores of competing agents, (b) rates of customer offer
prices proposed by them, and (c) order winning rates (the ratio
between the number of offers send to the number of orders
received). To evaluate different algorithms for predicting
customer winning bidding prices implemented in the Demand
Agent, the root mean square errors of their predictions were
calculated to estimate the models’ accuracies. In addition, the
complexity of algorithm implementation and time of their
execution were taken into consideration. The last parameter
(execution time) is important as in the TAC SCM game all the
decisions have to be made within 15 seconds.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>5. RESULTS AND FUTURE WORK</title>
      <p>The experiment results demonstrated that the agents that track
the supplier market, plan their production in advance, and/or
pick only profitable customer RFQs, perform better than those
that do not support these strategies. The agents that use one of
the proposed algorithms for predicting customer winning
bidding prices outperform agents that do not make any
predictions. The strategy of setting customer offer prices
according to the algorithms which predict probabilities of the
winning bidding prices to be in a particular price interval
appeared to be less successful than using other predictive
methods (predicting lowest order prices or competitors’ prices).
Although the algorithms for predicting lowest order prices and
competitors’ prices demonstrated different results across the
games played, all of them showed high level of prediction
accuracy. Both Neural Networks and Genetic Programming
learning techniques appeared to be appropriate for predicting
order price time series and competitors’ bidding prices. At the
same time, NN surpassed GP in terms of complexity of
algorithm implementation and time of execution in the case of
predicting competitors’ prices (1 second for NN versus 90
seconds for GP). The disparity in the models’ performance leads
to another conclusion that different models might work better in
different market conditions, which, in their turn, depend on the
strategies applied by competitors. According to this, the task for
future work is to develop a meta-model, which can consolidate
the results obtained from individual models and find
dynamically the best solution for the current market
environment.</p>
      <p>The experiments reveal that the prediction of the competitors’
bidding prices themselves is not enough for making optimal
decisions on offer prices: if the agent with the lowest predicted
price does not bid for an RFQ, then the winning price will be the
lowest among the ones set by the other agents who actually bid.
Thus, in addition to the prediction of the agents’ bidding prices
for every RFQ, the classifiers, that will specify whether the
agent will actually bid for the RFQ at such price level, have to
be introduced. This will help to make decisions on which RFQs
to bid for and what price to offer. Another task for future work
is the problem of Feature Subset Selection. In particular, the
experiments showed that the knowledge of the features that the
competitors are using for making their decisions, could improve
the predictive models of these competitors. The following claim
has been proved empirically: if a player knows which features its
competitor is using for making its bidding decisions, then, even
without knowing the exact strategy of the competitor, it is
possible to predict its bidding prices more accurately than in the
case when these features are not known. Thus, there is a task of
finding the method for predicting which parameters competitors
are using.</p>
      <p>With regard to the other agents implemented in the proposed
SCM system, there is plenty of room for improvement of the
performance of the Supply and Production Agents. Having the
limited production capacity, the Production Agents tries to
maximize its utility, i.e., the potential profit that might bring the
scheduled production. At the moment, the agent schedules
production for 12 days in the future using the following
heuristics. For every day in the future, the agent leaves some
capacity for future demand (the further production date, the
more cycles are reserved), then schedules current and late
orders, depending on their due date, profit and availability of
components, and after this, it allocates current RFQs, again
considering their due date, profit and availability of components.
To schedule the production more accurately and to use the
limited production capacity more efficiently, the agent needs to
predict future customer demand, as well as reconsider its
planning for the future dynamically, depending on the level of
orders actually received from the customers. With respect to the
Supply Agent, it places only short-term RFQs at the moment.
On the one hand, this approach gives low holding costs. At the
same time, the agent takes the risk not to get components on
time or to get them at higher rates. Thus, there is the need to find
the way to balance short-term and long-term requests for
components.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>6. CONCLUSIONS</title>
      <p>The main objective of the author’s PhD thesis is the
development and implementation of an intelligent multi-agent
decision support system for supply chain management (SCM).
The SCM environment is very complex, highly dynamic, and
with many constraints. It is unresolved issue at the moment on
deciding which strategies to follow and which learning methods
to use in order to perform more successfully in this domain.
Within the scope of the presented work, the effort is made to
contribute to finding better solutions by developing different
algorithms and testing them in the TAC SCM simulated
environment. In particular, a number of approaches for
predicting customer offer prices that could result in customer
orders are explored. To the best of author’s knowledge, the
proposed strategy of modelling competitors’ selling behaviour is
novel for the TAC community. With respect to the approaches
of predicting winning price probabilities and the lowest order
prices, which have been considered by other researchers, new
methods to solve the problems are investigated. The results of
the current research will be valuable for both academia and real
industries. More specifically, the work is dedicated to applying
machine learning techniques for forecasting and optimisation
problems, which is an open issue within the research
community. At the same time, the aim of the project is to build
up an integrated solution to assist managing supply chains.
Nowadays, enterprises are looking for implementing such
systems to run their businesses. Moreover, various techniques
for predicting bidding prices in the context of dynamic
competitive environments are explored. Apart from the SCM,
the solutions can be used in forecasting financial markets and
participating in on-line auctions.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Benish</surname>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Andrews</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sadeh</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2006</year>
          .
          <article-title>Pricing for Customers with Probabilistic Valuations as a Continuous Knapsack Problem</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Electronic Commerce (Fredericton</source>
          , Canada,
          <year>2006</year>
          ). ICEC-
          <volume>06</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>38</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>46</lpage>
          . DOI= http://doi.acm.
          <source>org/10</source>
          .1145/1151454.1151475
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Benish</surname>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Andrews</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sardinha</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Sadeh</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2006</year>
          .
          <article-title>CMieux: Adaptive Strategies for Competitive Supply Chain Trading</article-title>
          .
          <source>ACM SIGecom Exchanges</source>
          ,
          <volume>6</volume>
          ,
          <issue>1</issue>
          (June,
          <year>2006</year>
          ). ACM Press, New York, NY, USA,
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>10</lpage>
          . DOI= http://doi.acm.
          <source>org/10</source>
          .1145/1150735.1150737
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Benisch</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Greenwald</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Grypari</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Lederman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Naroditskiy</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>V.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tschantz</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2004</year>
          .
          <article-title>Botticelli: A supply chain management agent</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents</source>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Multi-Agent Systems</surname>
          </string-name>
          (New York, NY,
          <source>July 19-23</source>
          ,
          <year>2004</year>
          ). AAMAS-
          <volume>04</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>1174</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1181</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4] Collins,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Arunachalam</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Sadeh</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Eriksson</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Finne</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>N.</given-names>
            , and
            <surname>Janson</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>S.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <year>2006</year>
          .
          <article-title>The Supply Chain Management Game for the 2007 Trading Agent Competition</article-title>
          .
          <source>Technical Report CMU-ISRI-07-100</source>
          . Carnegie Mellon University.
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dahlgren</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wurman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2004</year>
          .
          <article-title>PackaTAC: A conservative trading agent</article-title>
          .
          <source>ACM SIGecom Exchanges</source>
          ,
          <volume>4</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>3</fpage>
          . ACM Press, New York, NY, USA,
          <fpage>38</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>45</lpage>
          . DOI= http://doi.acm.
          <source>org/10</source>
          .1145/1120701.1120707
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dong</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Tai</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>T.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Yeung</surname>
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Parkes</surname>
            <given-names>D.C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2004</year>
          .
          <article-title>HarTAC - the Harvard TAC SCM '03 Agent</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Trading Agent Design and Analysis Workshop</source>
          (New York, NY,
          <issue>20</issue>
          <year>July</year>
          ,
          <year>2004</year>
          ). TADA-
          <volume>03</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>8</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <surname>He</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Rogers</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Luo</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>X.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jennings</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>N.R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2006</year>
          .
          <article-title>Designing a Successful Trading Agent for Supply Chain Management</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (Hakodate, Japan</source>
          ,
          <fpage>8</fpage>
          -12 May,
          <year>2006</year>
          ). AAMAS-
          <volume>06</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>1159</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1166</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ketter</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Collins,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Gini</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>M.</given-names>
            ,
            <surname>Gupta</surname>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>A.</surname>
          </string-name>
          , and Schrater P.
          <year>2005</year>
          .
          <article-title>Identifying and Forecasting Economic Regimes in TAC SCM</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Edinburgh</source>
          , Scotland, UK,
          <volume>30</volume>
          <fpage>July</fpage>
          - 5
          <string-name>
            <surname>August</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <year>2005</year>
          ),
          <fpage>53</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>60</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          [9] Keller, W.,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dugay</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>F.-O.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Precup</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2004</year>
          .
          <article-title>RedAgent - winner of the TAC SCM 2003</article-title>
          .
          <article-title>ACM SIGecom Exchanges, 4, 3</article-title>
          . ACM Press, New York, NY, USA,
          <fpage>1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>8</lpage>
          . DOI= http://doi.acm.
          <source>org/10</source>
          .1145/1120701.1120703
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Ketter</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>W.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kryznaya</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Damer</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>S.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>McMillen</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Agovic</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , Collins,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
            , and
            <surname>Gini</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>M.</surname>
          </string-name>
          <year>2004</year>
          .
          <article-title>MinneTAC sales strategies for supply chain TAC</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Autonomous Agents</source>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Multi-Agent Systems</surname>
          </string-name>
          (New York, NY,
          <source>July 19-23</source>
          ,
          <year>2004</year>
          ). AAMAS-
          <volume>04</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>1372</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>1373</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kiekintveld</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Miller</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>J.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Jordan</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.R.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Wellman</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>M.P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2006</year>
          .
          <article-title>Controlling a supply chain agent using valuebased decomposition</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Seventh ACM conference on Electronic commerce</source>
          , Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA,
          <fpage>208</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>217</lpage>
          . DOI= http://doi.acm.
          <source>org/10</source>
          .1145/1134707.1134730
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Kontogounis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>I.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Chatzidimitriou</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>K.C.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>Symeonidis</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.L.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          , and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Mitkas</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.A.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2006</year>
          .
          <article-title>A Robust Agent Design for Dynamic SCM Environments</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Fourth Hellenic Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Heraklion</source>
          , Greece, May,
          <year>2006</year>
          ). SETN'
          <volume>06</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>18</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>20</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pardoe</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stone</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2007</year>
          .
          <article-title>Adapting in agent-based markets: A study from TAC SCM</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Sixth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems (Honolulu</source>
          , HI, May,
          <year>2007</year>
          ). AAMAS-
          <volume>06</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>677</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>679</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pardoe</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stone</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2006</year>
          .
          <article-title>Predictive Planning for Supply Chain Management</article-title>
          .
          <source>In Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling (Cumbria</source>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <surname>UK</surname>
          </string-name>
          , June,
          <year>2006</year>
          ). ICAPS-
          <volume>06</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>21</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>30</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <surname>Pardoe</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>D.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Stone</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>P.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <year>2004</year>
          .
          <article-title>Bidding for Customer Orders in TAC SCM: A Learning Approach</article-title>
          . In Proceedings of the Third International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and
          <string-name>
            <surname>Multi-Agent Systems</surname>
          </string-name>
          (New York, NY,
          <source>July 19-23</source>
          ,
          <year>2004</year>
          ). AAMAS-
          <volume>04</volume>
          ,
          <fpage>52</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>58</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>