Algorithmic Collusion by Large Language Models
Open accessAbstract
We conduct experiments with algorithmic pricing agents based on Large Language Models (LLMs). In oligopoly settings, LLM-based pricing agents quickly and autonomously reach supracompetitive prices and profits. Variation in seemingly innocuous phrases in LLM instructions ("prompts") substantially influence the degree of supracompetitive pricing. We develop novel techniques for behavioral analysis of LLMs and use them to uncover price-war concerns as a contributing factor. 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.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Only a small number of works have considered collusion in the context of more advanced AI agents, such as those powered by LLMs, and this remains a highly under-explored area.
“Only a small number of works, however, have considered collusion in the context of more advanced AI agents, such as those powered by LLMs (Fish et al., 2024; Mathew et al., 2024; Motwani et al., 2024; OpenAI, 2023c), and this remains a highly under-explored area.”
From Multi-Agent Risks from Advanced AI (2025) · cites this paper as Fish et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 10
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- E. R. Arunachaleswaran, N. Collina, S. Kannan, A. Roth, and J. Ziani. Algorithmic collusion without threats. In Proceedings of The 16th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS), 2025.
- E. Budish, P. Cramton, and J. Shim. The high-frequency trading arms race: Frequent batch auctions as a market design response. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 130(4): 1547-1621, 2015.
- A. Ezrachi and M. E. Stucke. Sustainable and unchallenged algorithmic tacit collusion. Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property, 17(2):217-260, 2020.
- J. W. Friedman. A non-cooperative equilibrium for supergames. The Review of Economic Studies, 38(1):1-12, 1971.
- Gemini Team. Gemini: A family of highly capable multimodal models, 2023. URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2312.11805.
- J. E. Harrington. Collusion among asymmetric firms: The case of different discount factors. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 7(2):289-307, 1989.
- C. A. Holt. Industrial organization: A survey of laboratory research. J. Kagel, A. Roth (eds), The Handbook of Experimental Economics, pages 349-434, 1995.
- J. H. Kagel and D. Levin. The winner's curse and public information in common value auctions. American Economic Review, 76(5):894-920, 1986.
- T. Klein. Autonomous algorithmic collusion: Q-learning under sequential pricing. RAND Journal of Economics, 52(3):538-558, 2021.
- J. B. MacQueen. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. In L. M. L. Cam and J. Neyman, editors, Proceedings of the 5th Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability, volume 1, pages 281-297, 1967.
- T. Mikolov, K. Chen, G. S. Corrado, and J. Dean. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2013.
- L. Musolff. Algorithmic pricing facilitates tacit collusion: Evidence from e-commerce. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC), pages 32-33, 2022.
- J. Pfau, W. Merrill, and S. R. Bowman. Let's think dot by dot: Hidden computation in transformer language models. In Proceedings of the First Conference on Language Modeling (COLM), 2024.
- G. J. Stigler. A theory of oligopoly. Journal of Political Economy, 72(1):44-61, 1964.
- D. M. Wegner. Ironic processes of mental control. Psychological review, 101(1):34-52, 01 1994.
- Authors
- Fish, S., Gonczarowski, Y. A., & Shorrer, R. I.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- arXiv
- 2404.00806
- OpenAlex
- W4393724845
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 5 · 2024: 5
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2343922)
- United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (2022417)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Merger and Competition Analysis
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Auction Theory and Applications
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
- Keywords
- algorithmic collusion, large language models, oligopoly, price war, prompt effects, auction markets, AI regulation, competition law
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
