---
title: Learning AI Agents, Market Makers, and Stress in Automated Markets
url: https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2611.01799/
site: ML-Quant (https://www.ml-quant.com)
updated: 2026-11-06
license: Summaries CC BY 4.0; links go to the original sources
index: https://www.ml-quant.com/llms.txt
identifier: arXiv:2611.01799
source_url: https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.01799
featured: 2026-11-06
citations: unknown
topic: Trading, Microstructure & Execution
---


# Learning AI Agents, Market Makers, and Stress in Automated Markets

The paper models learning traders on automated market makers, showing herds and arbitrage-dominated markets have identical statistics yet stress episodes differing unboundedly in length, and that maker-taker pricing restores stability.

- Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.01799
- Identifier: arXiv:2611.01799
- Released: 2026-11-03
- First featured: Quant Letter No. 138 (2026-11-06): https://www.ml-quant.com/issues/2026-11-06/
- Citations (Semantic Scholar): not tracked
- Published in: not yet
- Topic: Trading, Microstructure & Execution
- Authors: Irene Aldridge

## Abstract (arXiv, CC0)

Automated markets increasingly route order flow from learning trading agents through automated market makers (AMMs). We model trader archetypes as AI agents defined by their reward functions and analyze the feedback they create on a constant-product AMM. Herd-dominated and arbitrage-dominated markets of equal size have identical return distributions and turnover, so no rule based on volatility, value-at-risk, stress frequency, or volume can tell them apart; yet their stress episodes differ in length by a factor unbounded in the feedback-to-noise ratio $β/s$. Serial statistics identify the feedback sign from $Θ((s/β)^2\log(1/δ))$ observations, and this rate is tight. When agents trade together, profit-seeking agents ride herds rather than lean against them, leading to all-or-nothing participation. Spread-earning market makers restore stability but make liquidity fragile, with discontinuous collapse and hysteresis; maker--taker pricing, not a uniform fee, is the effective instrument.

## Related

- [Evolution of Market Microstructure in the Age of AI](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2609.33058/): A survey traces how market design has evolved from floor trading through electronic exchanges to AI agents, examining whether markets can allocate goods efficiently without full revelation.
- [Evolution of Market Microstructure in the Age of AI From Double-Sided Continuous Auctions to Agentic Markets](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/ssrn/7530158/): A survey traces how market design rules evolved from floor trading to limit order books to automated market makers to agent-based trading systems.
- [A Multi-step Approach for Minimizing Risk in Decentralized Exchanges](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2406.07200/): The article outlines the winning approach of the SIAG/FME Code Quest 2023 competition to implement an Automated Market Maker in Python, focusing on minimizing the Conditional Value at Risk to reduce computational complexity and improve solution accuracy.
- [Optimal Exit Time for Liquidity Providers in Automated Market Makers](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2509.06510/): The study investigates the best way for a liquidity provider to withdraw liquidity in an automated market, balancing fees and potential losses, and offers insights into dynamic liquidity provision.
- [Optimal Fees for Liquidity Provision in Automated Market Makers](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2508.08152/): The research investigates the earnings of passive liquidity providers in automated markets, suggesting that optimal fees should balance volume attraction and revenue generation, and dynamic fees can enhance results.
- [Optimal Dynamic Fees in Automated Market Makers](https://www.ml-quant.com/papers/arxiv/2506.02869/): The research investigates the best dynamic fees in Automated Market Makers, suggesting fees that are linear in inventory and sensitive to price changes are optimal.