0 cumulative citations
View corpus contextLarge language model traders struggle to reproduce human market convergence: in Smith-style double-auction simulations, LLM-populated markets show slower or no convergence, fewer trades and lower allocative efficiency than human benchmarks, and surprisingly the smaller model sometimes yields better market outcomes.
Competitive Market Behavior of LLMs
When substituted into canonical Smith-style double auctions, current LLM agents often fail to fully converge to the competitive equilibrium and produce lower allocative efficiency and fewer trades than the human benchmark, with substantial heterogeneity across model families and sizes.
Citation observations
Cumulative provider counts captured on specific dates; providers are never combined.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as economic agents, yet there is little evidence whether LLM agents are suited for participating in market mechanisms designed for humans, and whether these mechanisms deliver desired outcomes when faced with LLM agents. We address this question by replicating seminal economic experiments, replacing human subjects with LLM agents. We place agents in a double auction environment, which is a widely-used market mechanism. We check whether such a market is able to deliver an efficient allocation of resources, thereby testing a novel dimension of alignment of LLM agents -- their compatibility with a fundamental market mechanism. We find that markets populated by LLM agents exhibit slower or no convergence towards market equilibrium, thus providing less efficient allocations than markets populated by humans. We then analyze agents' individual trading decisions and find substantial heterogeneity both across model families and market roles. We also run a lexical analysis of Chain-of-Thought (CoT) traces generated by the agents. We find that the decision to execute a trade rather than continue incrementally adjusting prices is associated with a shift from strategic considerations toward urgency. We publicly release our testing framework, which can be used for future evaluations.
Summary
Main Finding
Markets populated by modern LLM agents often fail to reproduce the classic human result that continuous double auctions converge reliably to the competitive market equilibrium. LLM-populated markets exhibit slower or no convergence, lower allocative efficiency, and substantial heterogeneity across model families and market roles. A smaller model in this study (GPT Small) showed the best — though still incomplete — convergence; larger models (GPT Large, Gemini Large) performed worse in key metrics.
Key Points
- Experimental benchmark: replication of Smith (1962) continuous double auction (CDA) laboratory experiment, replacing human subjects with LLM agents.
- No full convergence: none of the tested LLM populations achieved the competitive equilibrium (p = $2.00, q = 6) across five rounds; price dispersion and inefficiency remained higher than the human benchmark.
- Model heterogeneity:
- GPT Small: strongest convergence signal — price dispersion α fell across rounds (27.6 → 11.7), allocative efficiency rose (0.79 → 0.91) and trade volume approached equilibrium in later rounds.
- GPT Large: poorest performance — low trade volume (≈2.2–3.8 trades/round), strong reluctance to cross spreads, many minimal ($0.01) quote improvements, allocative efficiency as low as 0.36.
- Gemini Large: intermediate performance (trade counts and efficiency between the two GPT variants).
- Micro behavior driving outcomes:
- Agents tend to make minimal ($0.01) improvements to standing quotes rather than crossing spreads, slowing or preventing transactions.
- When agents do choose to execute rather than incrementally adjust a price, their Chain-of-Thought (CoT) traces show a lexical shift from longer strategic reasoning to urgency- or execution-oriented language.
- Implications for interpreting LLM market behavior: some observed LLM patterns (e.g., slow undercutting, supracompetitive prices) may be due to failure to converge rather than explicit collusion, complicating causal interpretation of market outcomes involving LLMs.
- Reproducibility: authors released code, prompts and data (GitHub): https://github.com/jswistak/competitive-market-simulation
Data & Methods
- Market design:
- Symmetric CDA with 11 buyers and 11 sellers.
- Reservation prices: $0.75 to $3.25 in $0.25 increments → competitive equilibrium p = $2.00, q = 6.
- Five rounds per experiment; each round up to T = 300 iterations; each agent can transact at most once per round.
- Persistent order book: only spread-improving quotes are accepted; crossing quotes execute immediately against resting orders.
- Agent information and objective:
- At each decision, agent sees: own reservation price vi, current best bid b, best ask a, full market history Ht, and its private history Hi,t.
- Agents instructed to maximize profit; not told the equilibrium price or explicit tradeoff between probability and per-trade profit.
- LLMs tested:
- GPT Large (gpt-5.4-2026-03-05), GPT Small (gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17), Gemini Large (gemini-3.1-pro-preview).
- Default parameters, temperature = 1.
- Experimental protocol:
- 10 independent simulations (different random seeds) per model condition.
- Metrics averaged across these runs: number of trades, mean transaction price, price dispersion α = 100·σ0/P0, allocative efficiency (realized surplus / maximum attainable surplus).
- Analysis:
- Market-level convergence metrics compared to historical human benchmark (Smith 1962).
- Individual agent behavior characterized (trade vs incremental quoting patterns).
- Lexical analysis of CoT traces to detect changes in reasoning language associated with execution decisions.
- Key quantitative excerpts (means across rounds shown in paper):
- Human (Smith 1962): ~5–7 trades/round, prices ≈ $1.80–2.03, α declines from 11.8 → 3.5 across rounds.
- GPT Small: trades ≈ 5.5–6.2 in later rounds, prices ≈ $2.33 → $2.13, α 27.6 → 11.7, Eff. up to 0.91.
- GPT Large: trades ≈ 2.2–3.8, prices ≈ $1.82–2.13, α ≈ 15.6–22.1, Eff. 0.36–0.67.
- Gemini Large: trades ≈ 3.3–5.4, prices ≈ $1.94–2.26, α ≈ 20.6–28.1, Eff. 0.58–0.83.
Implications for AI Economics
- Market-institution alignment: LLM agents are not guaranteed to be “drop-in” replacements for humans in fundamental market mechanisms. Even when agents seek to maximize profit, their micro-level quoting behavior can prevent markets from realizing theoretical allocative efficiencies.
- Mechanism design and deployment:
- Exchanges and market designers should not assume human-like convergence properties when interacting with LLM agents. Mechanisms might need adaptation (e.g., limits on minimal quote increments, different matching rules, time/iteration limits, incentive structures) to preserve efficiency and reliable price signals.
- Slower convergence matters: even if eventual equilibrium is reachable, protracted paths to equilibrium reduce realized surplus and degrade price informativeness while the market is on that path.
- Interpretation of supra-competitive outcomes: observed supracompetitive prices or undercutting patterns in LLM-populated markets may reflect convergence failures or behavioral idiosyncrasies rather than explicit collusion. Antitrust and monitoring frameworks need to account for this ambiguity.
- Heterogeneity and model choice:
- Model scale or capability does not monotonically improve market outcomes — smaller models may sometimes behave more “market-compatible.” This suggests careful empirical validation is necessary before selecting LLMs for economic-agent roles.
- Directions for mitigation and research:
- Train or fine-tune agents for market-specific objectives (speed, willingness to cross spreads, calibrated risk preferences).
- Experiment with different mechanism parameters (tick sizes, order persistence rules, iteration/time caps) and mixed human–LLM markets.
- Systematic study of prompt design, temperature/response stochasticity, and scale effects on emergent market behavior.
- Use released framework and data to benchmark additional models and to explore interventions that restore convergence/efficiency.
In short: this paper provides a reproducible, quantitative demonstration that current LLMs can struggle to realize key collective market outcomes that arise reliably with human traders. That raises concrete concerns for using LLMs as autonomous market participants and suggests both further empirical work and potential mechanism redesign are needed.
Assessment
Paper Typedescriptive
Evidence Strengthmedium — The study uses controlled, repeatable simulations with multiple seeds and a clear human benchmark, producing quantitative metrics on convergence and efficiency; however, it is limited to three model variants, one market design, fixed prompting and temperature, a modest number of runs, and is a simulation (not field or human-subject experiment), which constrains external validity and causal generalization to real-world markets.
Methods Rigormedium — Design closely follows canonical experimental economics protocols (Smith double auction), implements a persistent order book, averages over repeated runs, and releases code/data, but choices such as single temperature/default params, a single symmetric market specification, limited model coverage, fixed iteration cap, and modest replication limits the robustness of conclusions and prohibits strong causal claims about real-world deployments.
SampleSimulated continuous double-auction markets with 11 buyers and 11 sellers per run, reservation prices from $0.75 to $3.25 in $0.25 increments (competitive equilibrium p*= $2.00, q*=6); three LLM agent populations tested (gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 'GPT Large', gpt-5.4-mini-2026-03-17 'GPT Small', gemini-3.1-pro-preview 'Gemini Large'); each condition run 10 times with different random seeds, 5 trading rounds per simulation, up to 300 iterations per round, default model parameters with temperature=1; human benchmark is Smith (1962) laboratory data; code and experimental data released.
Themesgovernance org_design
IdentificationControlled laboratory-style simulations: the authors replicate Smith (1962) continuous double-auction experiments in silico by populating the market with LLM agents (three model variants) and comparing market-level outcomes (price dispersion, trades, allocative efficiency) to the historical human-subject benchmark; they run 10 independent simulations per condition (different random seeds) and hold the market design constant (symmetric reservation schedules, persistent order book) to attribute differences in convergence/efficiency to agent behavior.
GeneralizabilitySimulations use a single symmetric Smith-style double auction — results may not generalize to other market formats, multi-unit or multi-good settings, or real-world exchanges., Only three model variants (and one smaller model) tested with default prompts/temperature — behavior may vary across prompt engineering, hyperparameters, or future model versions., Agents operate in an isolated, idealized lab environment without strategic externalities, institutional frictions, latency, or regulatory constraints present in real markets., Iteration cap (T=300), single-unit endowments, and specific information structure may affect observed convergence speed; different settings could change outcomes., Comparison is to historical human data rather than contemporaneous human runs under identical code/prompt conditions, limiting direct causal attribution to LLMs vs humans.
Claims (8)
| Claim | Direction | Outcome | Confidence & Evidence | Details |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| None of the three LLM-agent market conditions fully converged to the competitive equilibrium price of $2.00 and quantity of 6 trades. Market Structure | negative | Convergence to competitive equilibrium |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
n=30
|
| LLM-agent markets had higher price dispersion around equilibrium than the human benchmark in every trading round. Market Structure | negative | Transaction-price dispersion around the competitive equilibrium |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
n=30
LLM α remained above the human benchmark in all five rounds
|
| GPT Small showed the strongest observed convergence among the tested LLM populations, although convergence remained incomplete relative to human traders. Task Allocation | positive | Market convergence and allocative efficiency |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
n=10
Price: $2.33 to $2.13; α: 27.6 to 11.7; allocative efficiency: 0.79 to 0.91
|
| GPT Small produced higher allocative efficiency than either of the two larger tested models. Task Allocation | positive | Allocative efficiency, defined as realized surplus divided by maximum attainable equilibrium surplus |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
n=30
GPT Small peaked at 0.91, versus 0.83 for Gemini Large and 0.67 for GPT Large
|
| GPT Large generated substantially fewer trades than the equilibrium quantity, with mean trade volume ranging from 2.2 to 3.8 trades per round. Task Allocation | negative | Number of completed trades per round |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
n=10
2.2–3.8 trades per round versus equilibrium quantity 6
|
| GPT Large’s low trade volume was accompanied by lower allocative efficiency, ranging from 0.36 to 0.67 across rounds. Task Allocation | negative | Allocative efficiency and realized gains from trade |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
medium
|
n=10
0.36–0.67 allocative efficiency
|
| LLM agents predominantly improved standing orders in small $0.01 increments, preserving potential profit but increasing the risk that trades would not occur before the round ended. Market Structure | mixed | Order-improvement size and likelihood of completing a trade |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
Vast majority of order improvements were $0.01
|
| The decision to execute a trade rather than continue incrementally adjusting prices was associated with a shift in chain-of-thought language from strategic considerations toward urgency. Decision Quality | mixed | Reasoning-language shift associated with trade execution |
Reading fidelity
high
Study strength
low
|
not reported
|