CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Strategic AI in Cournot Markets

Deshpande, Sanyukta, Jacobson, Sheldon H.·2026·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2601.17263arXiv 2601.17263
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As artificial intelligence increasingly automates decision-making in competitive markets, understanding the resulting dynamics and ensuring fair market mechanisms is essential. We investigate the multi-faceted decision-making of large language models (LLMs) in oligopolistic Cournot markets, showing that LLMs not only grasp complex market dynamics--demonstrating their potential as effective economic planning agents--but also engage in sustained tacit collusion, driving prices up to 200% above Nash equilibrium levels. Our analysis examines LLM behavior across three dimensions-(1) decision type, (2) opponent strategies, and (3) market composition--revealing how these factors may shape the competitiveness of LLM-based decision-makers. Furthermore, we show that regulating a few dominant agents by enforcing best-response strategies effectively disrupts collusion and helps restore competitive pricing. Our findings identify potential concerns associated with AI integration in competitive market environments and provide regulatory policy recommendations for the era of automation.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2601.17263

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The 2010 Flash Crash and the collusion results of Syrnikov et al. (2026) and Deshpande & Jacobson (2026) illustrate that such systemic effects are not hypothetical.

    “The 2010 Flash Crash (Case Study 3.5) and the collusion results of Syrnikov et al. (2026) and Deshpande & Jacobson (2026) illustrate that such systemic effects are not hypothetical.”

    From Open Challenges in Multi-Agent Security: Towards Secure Systems of Interacting AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Deshpande & Jacobson (2026)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. Melika Abolhassani, Mohammad Hossein Bateni, MohammadTaghi Hajiaghayi, Hamid Mahini, and Anshul Sawant. Network cournot competition. In International Conference on Web and Internet Economics, pages 15-29. Springer, 2014.
  2. Humoud Alsabah, Benjamin Bernard, Agostino Capponi, Garud Iyengar, and Jay Sethuraman. Multiregional oligopoly with capacity constraints. Management Science, 67(8):4789-4808, 2021.
  3. Eshwar Ram Arunachaleswaran, Natalie Collina, Sampath Kannan, Aaron Roth, and Juba Ziani. Algorithmic collusion without threats. In 16th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2025), pages 10-1, 2025.
  4. Stephanie Assad, Robert Clark, Daniel Ershov, and Lei Xu. Algorithmic pricing and competition: Empirical evidence from the german retail gasoline market. Journal of Political Economy, 132 (3):723-771, 2024.
  5. Martino Banchio and Andrzej Skrzypacz. Artificial intelligence and auction design. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 30-31, 2022.
  6. Jean-Pierre Benoit and Vijay Krishna. Finitely repeated games. Econometrica, 53(4):905-922, 1985. doi: 10.2307/1912660. · DOI
  7. Lea Bernhardt and Ralf Dewenter. Collusion by code or algorithmic collusion? when pricing algorithms take over. European Competition Journal, 16(2-3):312-342, 2020.
  8. James A Brander and Tracy R Lewis. Oligopoly and financial structure: The limited liability effect. The American economic review, pages 956-970, 1986.
  9. Zach Y Brown and Alexander MacKay. Competition in pricing algorithms. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, 15(2):109-156, 2023.
  10. Stefan Buehler and Armin Schmutzler. Intimidating competitors-endogenous vertical integra- tion and downstream investment in successive oligopoly. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 26(1):247-265, 2008.
  11. René Caldentey and Martin B Haugh. Multimarket cournot equilibria with heterogeneous resource-constrained firms. Operations Research, 72(3):940-956, 2024.
  12. Emilio Calvano, Giacomo Calzolari, Vincenzo Denicolo, and Sergio Pastorello. Artificial intelli- gence, algorithmic pricing, and collusion. American Economic Review, 110(10):3267-3297, 2020.
  13. Claude d'Aspremont and Alexis Jacquemin. Cooperative and noncooperative r & d in duopoly with spillovers. The American Economic Review, 78(5):1133-1137, 1988.
  14. Yuan Deng, Vahab Mirrokni, Renato Paes Leme, Hanrui Zhang, and Song Zuo. Llms at the bargaining table. In Agentic Markets Workshop at ICML 2024, 2024.
  15. Teppo Felin and Matthias Holweg. Theory is all you need: Ai, human cognition, and causal reasoning. Strategy Science, 9(4):346-371, 2024.
  16. Sara Fish, Yannai A Gonczarowski, and Ran I Shorrer. Algorithmic collusion by large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00806, 2024. · arXiv
  17. Karsten T Hansen, Kanishka Misra, and Mallesh M Pai. Frontiers: Algorithmic collusion: Supra- competitive prices via independent algorithms. Marketing Science, 40(1):1-12, 2021.
  18. Joseph E Harrington. Developing competition law for collusion by autonomous artificial agents. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 14(3):331-363, 2018.
  19. Jason D Hartline, Sheng Long, and Chenhao Zhang. Regulation of algorithmic collusion. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Computer Science and Law, pages 98-108, 2024.
  20. Donald A Hay and Guy S Liu. The investment behaviour of firms in an oligopolistic setting. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 46(1):79-99, 1998.
  21. Pablo Hernandez-Leal, Bilal Kartal, and Matthew E Taylor. A survey and critique of multiagent deep reinforcement learning. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems, 33(6):750-797, 2019.
  22. Niklas Horstmann, Jan Krämer, and Daniel Schnurr. Number effects and tacit collusion in experimental oligopolies. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 66(3):650-700, 2018.
  23. Keith N Hylton. Oligopoly pricing and richard posner. In Forthcoming, Symposium on Posner's Antitrust Contributions, Antitrust Source, pages 18-10, 2018.
  24. Nicole Immorlica, Evangelos Markakis, and Georgios Piliouras. Coalition formation and price of anarchy in cournot oligopolies. In Internet and Network Economics: 6th International Workshop, WINE 2010, Stanford, CA, USA, December 13-17, 2010. Proceedings 6, pages 270-281. Springer, 2010.
  25. Bernhard Kasberger, Simon Martin, Hans-Theo Normann, and Tobias Werner. Algorithmic cooperation. Available at SSRN 4389647, 2023.
  26. Timo Klein. Autonomous algorithmic collusion: Q-learning under sequential pricing. The RAND Journal of Economics, 52(3):538-558, 2021.
  27. Yoav Kolumbus and Noam Nisan. How and why to manipulate your own agent: On the incentives of users of learning agents. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:28080-28094, 2022.
  28. Joel Z Leibo, Vinicius Zambaldi, Marc Lanctot, Janusz Marecki, and Thore Graepel. Multi-agent reinforcement learning in sequential social dilemmas. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.03037, 2017. · arXiv
  29. Michael L Littman and Peter Stone. A polynomial-time Nash equilibrium algorithm for repeated games. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. ACM, 2003.
  30. Nunzio Lorè and Babak Heydari. Strategic behavior of large language models and the role of game structure versus contextual framing. Scientific Reports, 14(1):18490, 2024.
  31. Jeanine Miklós-Thal and Catherine Tucker. Collusion by algorithm: Does better demand predic- tion facilitate coordination between sellers? Management Science, 65(4):1552-1561, 2019.
  32. Nick Otis, Rowan Clarke, Solene Delecourt, and David Holtz. The uneven impact of generative ai on entrepreneurial performance. In Academy of Management Proceedings, volume 2024, page 21128. Academy of Management Valhalla, NY 10595, 2024.
  33. Richard A Posner. Oligopoly and the antitrust laws: a suggested approach. In Dominance and Monopolization, pages 197-242. Routledge, 2017.
  34. Narun Raman, Taylor Lundy, Samuel Joseph Amouyal, Yoav Levine, Kevin Leyton-Brown, and Moshe Tennenholtz. Steer: assessing the economic rationality of large language models. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'24. JMLR.org, 2024.
  35. Michael Schlechtinger, Damaris Kosack, Franz Krause, and Heiko Paulheim. By fair means or foul: quantifying collusion in a market simulation with deep reinforcement learning. In Proceedings of the Thirty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 485-493, 2024.
  36. Sandip Sen, Mahendra Sekaran, John Hale, et al. Learning to coordinate without sharing infor- mation. In AAAI, volume 94, pages 426-431, 1994.
  37. Manahan Siallagan, Hiroshi Deguchi, and Manabu Ichikawa. Aspiration-based learning in a cournot duopoly model. Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, 10:295-314, 2013.
  38. Barbara J Spencer and James A Brander. International r & d rivalry and industrial strategy. The Review of Economic Studies, 50(4):707-722, 1983.
  39. Karthik Valmeekam, Matthew Marquez, Alberto Olmo, Sarath Sreedharan, and Subbarao Kamb- hampati. Planbench: An extensible benchmark for evaluating large language models on planning and reasoning about change. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:38975- 38987, 2023.
  40. Hal R Varian. Intermediate microeconomics: a modern approach. Elsevier Brasil, 2003.
  41. Mariano Ventosa, Alvaro Baıllo, Andrés Ramos, and Michel Rivier. Electricity market modeling trends. Energy policy, 33(7):897-913, 2005.
  42. Ludo Waltman and Uzay Kaymak. Q-learning agents in a cournot oligopoly model. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 32(10):3275-3293, 2008.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Deshpande, S., & Jacobson, S. H.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2601.17263
arXiv
2601.17263
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

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