R. Maria del Rio-Chanona

Maxime Saxena, Marco Pangallo, Fabio Caccioli et al.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into financial systems, understanding their behavioural properties is crucial. Do LLMs conform to the rational expectations paradigm, do they exhibit human-like "animal spirits", or do they instead manifest distinct "machine spirits"? We investigate these questions with a simulated financial market, exploring the behaviour of 15 LLMs spanning a range of sizes, capabilities, and providers. Our results show that LLMs exhibit a spectrum of economic behaviours, from stable coordination on the fundamental value to human-like speculative bubbles. These behaviours are generally inconsistent with the rational expectations hypothesis. We also consider an ecology of heterogeneous agents, a more realistic setting compared to markets with identical LLM agents. These mixed markets can produce outcomes which vary substantially across repeated simulations. Even the most advanced models fail to consistently stabilise the market, with price bubbles sometimes forming despite only a minority of agents naturally forming bubbles. Instead, advanced models in mixed markets adapt their forecasting strategies to the behaviour of other agents. This adaptation can allow them to successfully exploit less sophisticated counterparts and achieve higher profits, but can also contribute to increased market volatility. These findings suggest that the introduction of AI agents into financial markets fundamentally reshapes their ecology. In particular, heterogeneous populations of LLMs can generate endogenous instability, while individual-level adaptation may amplify, rather than mitigate, market volatility.

Alice Plebe, Timothy Douglas, Diana Riazi et al.

Large language models are increasingly integrated into news recommendation systems, raising concerns about their role in spreading misinformation. In humans, visual content is known to boost credibility and shareability of information, yet its effect on vision-language models (VLMs) remains unclear. We present the first study examining how images influence VLMs' propensity to reshare news content, whether this effect varies across model families, and how persona conditioning and content attributes modulate this behavior. To support this analysis, we introduce two methodological contributions: a jailbreaking-inspired prompting strategy that elicits resharing decisions from VLMs while simulating users with antisocial traits and political alignments; and a multimodal dataset of fact-checked political news from PolitiFact, paired with corresponding images and ground-truth veracity labels. Experiments across model families reveal that image presence increases resharing rates by 4.8% for true news and 15.0% for false news. Persona conditioning further modulates this effect: Dark Triad traits amplify resharing of false news, whereas Republican-aligned profiles exhibit reduced veracity sensitivity. Of all the tested models, only Claude-3-Haiku demonstrates robustness to visual misinformation. These findings highlight emerging risks in multimodal model behavior and motivate the development of tailored evaluation frameworks and mitigation strategies for personalized AI systems. Code and dataset are available at: https://github.com/3lis/misinfo_vlm

R. Maria del Rio-Chanona, Marco Pangallo, Cars Hommes

We explore the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) to replicate human behavior in economic market experiments. Compared to previous studies, we focus on dynamic feedback between LLM agents: the decisions of each LLM impact the market price at the current step, and so affect the decisions of the other LLMs at the next step. We compare LLM behavior to market dynamics observed in laboratory settings and assess their alignment with human participants' behavior. Our findings indicate that LLMs do not adhere strictly to rational expectations, displaying instead bounded rationality, similarly to human participants. Providing a minimal context window i.e. memory of three previous time steps, combined with a high variability setting capturing response heterogeneity, allows LLMs to replicate broad trends seen in human experiments, such as the distinction between positive and negative feedback markets. However, differences remain at a granular level--LLMs exhibit less heterogeneity in behavior than humans. These results suggest that LLMs hold promise as tools for simulating realistic human behavior in economic contexts, though further research is needed to refine their accuracy and increase behavioral diversity.