skip to main content
10.1145/3490354.3494389acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicaifConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Agent-based markets: equilibrium strategies and robustness

Published:04 May 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Agent-based modelling (ABM) is broadly adopted to empirically study the market microstructure. Researchers set up market mechanisms and behaviour rules for participating traders, modelled as agents, and observe the simulation results. However, these results can qualitatively change if trader incentives are ignored - an equilibrium analysis is key to ABM. Empirical game-theoretic analysis (EGTA) is widely adopted to compute the equilibria of these agent-based markets. In this paper, we investigate the equilibrium strategy profiles, including their induced market performance, and their robustness to different simulation parameters. For two mainstream trading mechanisms, continuous double auctions and call markets, we find that EGTA is needed for solving the game as pure strategies are not a good approximation of the equilibrium. Moreover, EGTA gives generally sound and robust solutions regarding different market and model setups, with the notable exception of agents' risk attitude. We also consider heterogeneous EGTA, a more realistic generalisation of EGTA whereby traders can modify their strategies during the simulation, and show that fixed strategies lead to sufficiently good analyses, especially taking the computation cost into the consideration.

References

  1. Kenneth Joseph Arrow. 1965. Aspects of the theory of risk-bearing. Helsinki: Yrjö Jahnsonian Sätiö.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. W Brian Arthur, John H Holland, Blake LeBaron, Richard Palmer, and Paul Tayler. 1996. Asset pricing under endogenous expectations in an artificial stock market. The economy as an evolving complex system II 27 (1996).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Erik Brinkman and Michael P Wellman. 2017. Empirical mechanism design for optimizing clearing interval in frequent call markets. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation. 205--221.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Eric Budish, Peter Cramton, and John Shim. 2015. The high-frequency trading arms race: Frequent batch auctions as a market design response. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 130, 4 (2015), 1547--1621.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Dave Cliff and Janet Bruten. 1998. Zero is Not Enough: On The Lower Limit of Agent Intelligence For Continuous Double Auction Markets. (1998).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Norman Ehrentreich. 2003. A corrected version of the santa fe institute artificial stock market model. Complexity (2003), 23.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Dhananjay K Gode and Shyam Sunder. 1993. Allocative efficiency of markets with zero-intelligence traders: Market as a partial substitute for individual rationality. Journal of political economy 101, 1 (1993), 119--137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Blake LeBaron. 2002. Building the Santa Fe artificial stock market. Physica A (2002), 1--20.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Martin Lettau. 1997. Explaining the facts with adaptive agents: The case of mutual fund flows. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 21, 7 (1997), 1117--1147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Haim Levy. 1994. Absolute and relative risk aversion: An experimental study. Journal of Risk and uncertainty 8, 3 (1994), 289--307.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Buhong Liu, Maria Polukarov, Carmine Ventre, Lingbo Li, and Leslie Kanthan. 2021. Call Markets with Adaptive Clearing Intervals. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. 1587--1589.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Richard G Palmer, W Brian Arthur, John H Holland, Blake LeBaron, and Paul Tayler. 1994. Artificial economic life: a simple model of a stockmarket. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 75, 1--3 (1994), 264--274.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. John W Pratt. 1978. Risk aversion in the small and in the large. In Uncertainty in economics. Elsevier, 59--79.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. L Julian Schvartzman and Michael P Wellman. 2009. Stronger CDA strategies through empirical game-theoretic analysis and reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of The 8th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems-Volume 1. 249--256.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Elaine Wah, Dylan Hurd, and Michael Wellman. 2016. Strategic market choice: Frequent call markets vs. continuous double auctions for fast and slow traders. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Serious Games 3, 10 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Elaine Wah, Sébastien Lahaie, and David M Pennock. 2016. An Empirical Game-Theoretic Analysis of Price Discovery in Prediction Markets.. In IJCAI. 510--516.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Elaine Wah, Mason Wright, and Michael P Wellman. 2017. Welfare effects of market making in continuous double auctions. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 59 (2017), 613--650.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Xintong Wang and Michael P Wellman. 2017. Spoofing the limit order book: An agent-based model. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 651--659.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Michael P Wellman. 2006. Methods for empirical game-theoretic analysis. In AAAI. 1552--1556.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Agent-based markets: equilibrium strategies and robustness

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ICAIF '21: Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on AI in Finance
      November 2021
      450 pages
      ISBN:9781450391481
      DOI:10.1145/3490354

      Copyright © 2021 ACM

      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. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 4 May 2022

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader