Ran I. Shorrer

Sara Fish, Yannai A. Gonczarowski, Ran I. Shorrer

The rise of algorithmic pricing raises concerns of algorithmic collusion. We conduct experiments with algorithmic pricing agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs). We find that LLM-based pricing agents quickly and autonomously reach supracompetitive prices and profits in oligopoly settings and that variation in seemingly innocuous phrases in LLM instructions ("prompts") may substantially influence the degree of supracompetitive pricing. Off-path analysis using novel techniques uncovers price-war concerns as contributing to these phenomena. Our results extend to auction settings. Our findings uncover unique challenges to any future regulation of LLM-based pricing agents, and AI-based pricing agents more broadly.

Sara Fish, Julia Shephard, Minkai Li et al.

We develop benchmarks for LLM agents that act in, learn from, and strategize in unknown environments, the specifications of which the LLM agent must learn over time from deliberate exploration. Our benchmarks consist of decision-making tasks derived from key problems in economics. To forestall saturation, the benchmark tasks are synthetically generated with scalable difficulty levels. Additionally, we propose litmus tests, a new kind of quantitative measure for LLMs and LLM agents. Unlike benchmarks, litmus tests quantify differences in character, values, and tendencies of LLMs and LLM agents, by considering their behavior when faced with tradeoffs (e.g., efficiency versus equality) where there is no objectively right or wrong behavior. Overall, our benchmarks and litmus tests assess the abilities and tendencies of LLM agents in tackling complex economic problems in diverse settings spanning procurement, scheduling, task allocation, and pricing -- applications that should grow in importance as such agents are further integrated into the economy.

Gonzalo Ballestero, Hadi Hosseini, Samarth Khanna et al.

AI agents increasingly operate in multi-agent environments where outcomes depend on coordination. We distinguish primary algorithmic monoculture -- baseline action similarity -- from strategic algorithmic monoculture, whereby agents adjust similarity in response to incentives. We implement a simple experimental design that cleanly separates these forces, and deploy it on human and large language model (LLM) subjects. LLMs exhibit high levels of baseline similarity (primary monoculture) and, like humans, they regulate it in response to coordination incentives (strategic monoculture). While LLMs coordinate extremely well on similar actions, they lag behind humans in sustaining heterogeneity when divergence is rewarded.