Language-model traders replicate human-like mispricing and trading patterns in simulated auctions, and simple prompt tweaks reliably amplify or damp market bubbles; the result shows policymakers and designers can causally steer AI-driven market behavior but warns findings are model- and setting-specific.

Main Finding

AI traders built on large language models (LLMs), when placed in a simulated Smith-style open-call asset market, reproduce classic human behavioral finance patterns—most notably a strong disposition effect and recency-weighted extrapolative expectations—and these micro-level heuristics aggregate into familiar macro-level dynamics (predictable excess-demand-driven price paths and disagreement-driven volume). Moreover, the authors can read agents’ Chain-of-Thought text to identify cognitive mechanisms and show that targeted prompt interventions causally amplify or suppress specific biases, materially changing bubble magnitudes — pointing to prompt-level “cognitive guardrails” as a potential policy tool.

Key Points

• Behavioral regularities
  • Disposition effect: LLM agents are more likely to sell when holding unrealized gains (statistically significant), mirroring human investor behavior.
  • Extrapolative expectations: Agents overweight recent returns when forecasting future prices (recency bias / momentum extrapolation).
  • Tight belief-action coupling: Unlike many human subject findings, agents’ stated forecasts closely map into executed trades (limited human frictions → stronger mapping).
• Equilibrium / market-level replication
  • Excess demand (measured via bid-offer gap) predicts future price changes, reproducing classic Smith et al. (1988) experimental results.
  • Cross-sectional disagreement in beliefs correlates positively with trading volume (heterogeneous beliefs → more trade).
  • Aggregate dynamics (bubbles & crashes) emerge endogenously from the micro heuristics.
• Textual reasoning and mechanism identification
  • Agents are required to maintain PLANS.txt and INSIGHTS.txt (persistent CoT memory). Extracted text is consistent with measured beliefs and trades.
  • A twenty-mechanism scoring framework applied to reasoning text identifies cognitive drivers active in bubble vs non-bubble episodes (e.g., momentum chasing, speculation, anchoring).
• Causal interventions via prompts
  • Targeted prompts designed to suppress specific behavioral mechanisms reduce bubble magnitudes.
  • Contrasting prompts that amplify those mechanisms increase bubble formation.
  • Interventions demonstrate causal control over aggregate outcomes by modifying agent cognition at the prompt level.
• Contributions
  • Opens the “black box” by linking internal LLM reasoning to actions and market outcomes.
  • Establishes a micro→macro transmission channel for AI-driven markets.
  • Proposes an actionable policy lever (prompt design / cognitive guardrails) for systemic stability.

Data & Methods

• Experimental environment
  • Multi-period open-call auction (adapted Smith et al. (1988)): 3 practice periods + T = 20 main periods. No short-selling or margin.
  • Two assets: cash (risk-free) and one risky asset with per-period dividend drawn iid from {0.4, 1.0} (each with prob. 0.5); E[D]=0.7. Risk-free rate r=5% → constant fundamental value FV = E[D]/r = 14 (terminal buyout implemented to keep FV constant).
  • Endowment: each agent starts with 100 cash and 4 shares.
• Agent architecture and population
  • Agents are autonomous instances of frontier LLMs (14 different models used; experiments include Single-Model Markets: 20 agents of same LLM; Mixed-Model Markets: 24 agents split evenly across two LLMs).
  • Agents instructed to maximize earnings; receive full market-state JSON and maintain persistent PLANS.txt and INSIGHTS.txt across rounds (Chain-of-Thought / memory trace).
• Decision pipeline per round
  • Agents first generate explicit textual reasoning (PLANS/INSIGHTS), then forecasts and limit orders.
  • Forecasts elicited for horizons h ∈ {0, 2, 5, 10} periods ahead. Forecasts constrained to non-negative integers and bounded; agents receive 5 cash units per forecast within ±2.5 units of realized price (incentivization).
  • Trading: simultaneous submission of limit orders (price, quantity). Market clears by call auction that selects the price maximizing executable volume V(p)=min(QB(p),QA(p)); clearing price rounded down; if no overlap price set to midpoint between highest bid and lowest ask.
• Data recorded
  • Action & market data: full order books, executed trades, prices Pt, trading volumes, bid-ask spreads, end-of-round portfolios.
  • Expectation data: full term structure of forecasts; forecast error Eh_{i,t} = P_{t+h} − f_{i,t}(t+h).
  • Textual reasoning: PLANS.txt, INSIGHTS.txt, and JSON thoughts logged and scored.
• Empirical analyses
  • Regression tests for disposition effect: Sell dummy (sell>buy in a period) regressed on Gain dummy (price > agent’s weighted-average purchase price), controlling for Average Expectation; Gain dummy positive and highly significant.
  • Tests for extrapolation: forecast regressions showing heavier weights on recent returns.
  • Macro tests: predictive regressions where bid-offer gap/excess demand forecasts future price changes; cross-sectional dispersion measures tested against trading volume.
  • Text scoring: a twenty-mechanism rubric applied to agent reasoning to identify prevalence/intensity of mechanisms across episodes.
  • Causal prompt interventions: pre-specified prompts designed to suppress or amplify targeted mechanisms; comparison of bubble magnitudes and market statistics across treatment arms.

Implications for AI Economics

• AI agents inherit human-like behavioral biases: Because LLMs are trained on human-generated financial text, they internalize cognitive patterns (disposition, extrapolation) that can reproduce human-style market inefficiencies. Model training data therefore matters for aggregate market behavior.
• Observable CoT unlocks causal inference: Requiring persistent textual reasoning allows researchers and regulators to trace and score internal motives, significantly improving transparency relative to black-box algorithmic agents.
• Programmability as a systemic lever: Prompt-level interventions can causally alter collective outcomes (reduce or aggravate bubbles). This suggests a feasible regulator/developer toolkit: enforce or certify “cognitive guardrails” (prompt templates, constraints, or pre-deployment audits) to mitigate destabilizing behaviors.
• Market-design and model heterogeneity matter: Mixed-model interactions can generate complex dynamics; regulator attention should extend beyond single-model behavior to cross-model interactions (e.g., rational vs extrapolative LLM types).
• Deployment caution for real markets
  • Even absence of human frictions (transaction costs, attention limits) does not guarantee rational markets — LLM-driven traders can generate bubbles via learned heuristics.
  • Policy should consider not only model internals but also deployment rules (allowed strategies, required reasoning disclosure, forecast incentives).
• Research directions
  • Test robustness in richer market settings (continuous-time trading, short-selling, margin, order book microstructure, intertemporal risk preferences).
  • Explore how training data composition and fine-tuning strategies alter behavioral patterns.
  • Design and evaluate operational regulatory frameworks: prompt-certification, mandatory CoT disclosures, or real-time monitoring using the authors’ scoring framework.
• Limitations (noted / implied)
  • Simulated environment is simplified relative to real financial markets (no high-frequency microstructure, no institutional constraints, stylized dividend process).
  • Generalizability across LLM architectures and training regimes needs further study.
  • Ethical and practical questions about who sets guardrails and how adversarial actors might circumvent prompts remain.

If you want, I can: - Extract and summarize the twenty mechanisms and example scoring rubric the authors used (if you provide Appendix or examples). - Produce a concise table of the empirical results (disposition regressions, predictive regressions, intervention effects) if you want numeric estimates pulled from the paper.