Better LLMs can make markets riskier: simulations show higher-capability language-model traders act more similarly, producing correlated errors that cannot be diversified away, and when exposed to shared misleading information higher LLM participation amplifies mispricing and volatility.

Main Finding

Improving individual LLM capability can increase systemic risk when many similar models act together. The authors show analytically and in agent-based financial-market simulations that more capable LLM agents exhibit more highly correlated non-corrective behavior, creating a non-diversifiable risk floor. When agents share accurate information, higher LLM participation improves price discovery; when they share misleading information, the same correlated behavior amplifies mispricing and volatility, producing market outcomes worse than those with uninformed noise traders.

Key Points

• Capability paradox: individual model improvements do not guarantee better system outcomes; greater capability can homogenize reasoning and increase correlated errors.
• Action decomposition: each agent action a(i)t is split into a corrective component proportional to the price–fundamental gap Gt−1 (coefficient λi) and a non-corrective residual r(i)t:
  • a(i)t = λi Gt−1 + r(i)t.
• Non-diversifiable risk floor: average residual variance across N agents decomposes as
  • Var( r̄t ) = (1 − ρ̄) σ2r / N + ρ̄ σ2r,
  • where ρ̄ is mean pairwise correlation of residuals. The second term (ρ̄ σ2r) does not vanish as N grows.
• Empirical findings (RQ1): frontier LLMs show significant positive correlation in non-corrective components; correlation increases with capability.
  • Pairwise regressions: average capability predicts non-corrective correlation (ELO: t=3.94, p=0.001, R2=0.475; MMLU-Pro: t=4.88, p<0.001, R2=0.580).
  • Observed residual variance floor ≈ 0.010 vs single-model variance 0.021 (diversification cannot eliminate the floor).
• Market-level scaling (RQ2): in a single-asset agent-based market with noise traders and market maker, increasing LLM participation monotonically reduces mean tracking error (prices closer to fundamentals) when LLMs act on accurate signals.
  • Cross-model differences explained by gap sensitivity λ: more aggressive λ → lower residual tracking error (examples: Gemini λ≈1.51 error≈1.33; Sonnet λ≈1.15 error≈2.10).
• Shared misinformation (RQ3): when all agents receive the same adversarial commentary (consistent narrative discounting the displayed fair-value by 25–30%), increasing LLM share dramatically worsens market performance:
  • Mean tracking error rises with LLM share (up to ~5–7× baseline at full penetration).
  • Volatility increases.
  • Directional accuracy collapses (examples: Haiku 54%, Gemini 68%, Sonnet 42% ≈ contrarian).
  • Because misinformation is shared, errors are fully correlated and scale up with population, removing the stabilizing benefits seen in RQ2.

Data & Methods

• Analytical framework:
  • Decomposition of actions into corrective (λ G) and non-corrective residuals; derivation of variance decomposition and risk floor.
• RQ1 (model-behavior panel):
  • 7 LLMs evaluated across 64 systematically varied scenarios (variation in fundamental gaps, momentum, volatility, analyst views).
  • 5 samples per scenario per model.
  • For each model, fit OLS of actions on fundamental gap to isolate residuals; compute pairwise Pearson correlations of residuals across scenarios.
  • Regression of pairwise residual correlation on average capability (ELO, MMLU-Pro) and same-provider indicator.
• RQ2 & RQ3 (agent-based market simulation):
  • Single-asset market, 100 rounds with two step shocks to fundamental value (100→120 at t≈33; 120→90 at t≈66).
  • Agents: homogeneous LLM family (Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Sonnet 4.6, or Gemini 2.0 Flash Lite) mixed with zero-mean noise traders and a market maker.
  • Price update: Pt = Pt−1 + δ · nett / N (δ = price-impact parameter).
  • Vary LLM participation share s ∈ {0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0}, multiple random seeds.
  • RQ3 adds shared distractor commentary each round: neutral rotating commentary vs adversarial unanimous commentary claiming the fair-value signal overstates intrinsic value by 25–30%.
  • Metrics: mean tracking error (mean |Pt − Ft|), realized volatility, directional accuracy, residual regression slope λ (gap sensitivity).
• Quantitative highlights:
  • Residual variance floor ≈ 0.010 (about half single-model variance of 0.021).
  • Capability significantly predicts residual correlation; shared provider not a significant predictor in panel.
  • Under adversarial shared commentary, markets with high LLM share become strictly worse than noise-only baseline.

Implications for AI Economics

• Systemic risk from LLMs is not monotone in individual capability. Regulators, platform designers, and firms must assess collective dynamics, not just per-model benchmarks.
• Key monitoring and evaluation recommendations:
  • Measure pairwise correlation of non-corrective residuals across models (fit model-specific corrective regressions, compute residual correlations on a held-out set).
  • Include stresses with correlated misinformation / common-context shocks in deployment stress tests and model certification (analogous to financial-system stress tests).
  • Track gap sensitivity (λ) as an operational parameter: aggressive corrective behavior helps price discovery when signals are reliable but may amplify shocks in thin markets.
• Design and governance interventions:
  • Increase epistemic and training-data heterogeneity across deployed agents to reduce ρ̄ (architectural and data diversity, mixture-of-providers).
  • Limit homogeneous deployments (caps on market share for identical/near-identical agent designs) in high-stakes domains.
  • Reduce single-source shared context where possible (e.g., diversify information feeds, randomized context augmentation, block identical narratives).
  • Require systemic-impact reporting for deployments that may create correlated action at scale (analog to systemic-risk disclosure).
  • Implement real-time monitoring for emergent correlation spikes and trigger safeguards (circuit breakers, temporary throttles).
• Research implications:
  • Need empirical studies in other domains (content moderation, hiring, networked infrastructure) to test whether capability-driven correlation emerges similarly.
  • Investigate mechanisms behind capability-driven homogenization (training data overlap vs. instruction-tuning / RLHF convergence).
  • Explore mitigation via explicit ensemble diversification strategies, counterfactual/contextual perturbations, and incentivizing heterogeneity.
• Policy implication: regulation and institutional risk management should treat powerful LLM fleets as potential sources of systemic externalities; individual accuracy metrics are insufficient.

Caveats and limits - The study uses stylized agent-based simulations with specific LLM families and an abstracted market; real-world markets and multi-agent settings are more complex. - Capability proxies (ELO, MMLU-Pro) are general-purpose benchmarks, not financial expertise measures. - The adversarial distractor is an extreme, coherent misinformation condition (useful to illustrate mechanism but not a calibrated estimate of real-world frequency). - Open empirical question whether the same dynamics appear in other socio-technical systems beyond markets.