Agentic Limit Order Books: Phase Transitions and Market Impact

Jan Rosenzweig

Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2609.31260

Agentic Limit Order Books: Phase Transitions and Market Impact

Jan Rosenzweig

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We investigate the systemic macroscopic dynamics emerging from Limit Order Books (LOBs) populated exclusively by autonomous reinforcement-learning agentic traders. By formalizing agent interactions within a microscopic order-matching engine, we examine two fundamental quantitative phenomena: equilibrium phase transitions in order flow regime shifts, and the structural dynamics of market impact. We show that agentic LOBs exhibit distinct phase boundaries separating orderly price discovery from hyper-volatile cascade states, governed by critical thresholds in the number of agents and observable market depth. Furthermore, we demonstrate that market impact under agentic liquidity provision deviates from classical square-root dynamics, exhibiting distinct dissipative, balanced, and non-dissipative regimes under non-linear feedback loops.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.TR cs.AI q-fin.CP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Jan Rosenzweig. 2026-09-25. Agentic Limit Order Books: Phase Transitions and Market Impact. https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.31260

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Oracle-Parametrized Constant Function Market Makers: From Price Feeds to Pricing Rules

This paper introduces oracle-parametrized automated market makers (OP-AMMs), i.e., automated market makers whose quoted price depends jointly on the pool reserves and an external oracle price. In doing so, we extend the information-agnostic AMM framework to settings, such as tokenized securities, for which price discovery occurs off-chain. Under a strict oracle-contraction condition, we show that the quoted price of any OP-AMM interpolates between the oracle price and an implicit autarkic price determined by the pool reserves. We then derive a general loss-versus-rebalancing (LVR) decomposition that separates the residual exposure to market lags from the losses induced by oracle errors. This analysis is further extended to stale, discrete-update oracles and to sandwich attacks around oracle updates. Using this framework, we find conditions under which OP-AMMs simultaneously increase local capital efficiency and reduce normalized LVR relative to information-agnostic AMMs. However, sufficiently noisy or stale oracles can reverse these gains. A counterfactual backtest using one-second SPY NBBO data is provided to demonstrate these trade-offs. In particular, we map the Pareto-efficient frontier of oracle-parametrized constant function market maker (OP-CFMM) designs across stylized oracle regimes.

q-fin.TR↗

arXiv2026

Packets, Transactions and Queues: Design Principles for HFT Systems from a Measurement Study of CME Market Data

HFT systems are conventionally built as a single-threaded event loop, on the rule that every thread hop adds latency. We test that rule against a measurement study of more than a year of CME market data for the NQ front-month contract, following every packet and matching-engine transaction through the feed's two exchange timestamps, and checking the results against a live production receiver. Packets arrive in near-critical self-exciting clusters that belong to the matching engine's transactions, not to how the exchange packs them. The engine often processes consecutive transactions within a fraction of a microsecond, while the market-data publisher sends at most one packet per publisher period of about 7.5 microseconds, so a burst reaches the receiver as a train of packets one period apart. This yields design principles for HFT systems. First, a receiver that handles each packet within one publisher period never queues on arrivals, however bursty the market; there one thread is best. Second, above that period a queueing tail appears, driven by the timing of transactions, not by packet rate or size, and two threads can be better than one: splitting the servicing chain into two stages on separate threads removes most of the tail at the cost of one hop on the median. Third, only the slowest stage matters, so a split pays only if it shortens it. Fourth, just under the period, where the production receiver runs, the remaining tail comes from multi-message packets and variable service times, and the levers are cost per message and spread of service, not thread count. An analytic framework, a burst-limit throughput identity and an exact reduction of the tandem to a single bottleneck server, supports these results.

q-fin.TR↗

arXiv2026

Do Two On-Chain Observation Pipelines See the Same Tokens? Cross-Pipeline Coverage on the Solana pump.fun Launchpad

On-chain studies of memecoin launchpads usually rely on one data-collection pipeline, yet whether differently configured pipelines observe the same tokens is rarely measured. This paper compares the output mint sets of two separately configured pipelines from one research programme on the Solana pump.fun launchpad: a cohort-detection pipeline that flags coordinated early-buyer wallets, and a rejection-filtering pipeline that logs a trader-side observer's pre-trade filter decisions. Two consecutive, non-overlapping windows are analysed (v1: June 2026; v2: June-July 2026); in each, the rejection data are restricted to the interval spanned by the cohort detections under four timestamp rules. Only raw counts, observed proportions and Jaccard/Dice indices are reported. In v2, where the rejection stream covers the whole 17.5-day window, the cohort set contains 623 mints and the rejection set 1,742, with 5 overlapping mints (0.803% of cohort; 0.287% of rejection). In v1 a collection gap means the rejection stream covers only the final 14.25 hours (4.4%) of the 13.4-day cohort window; the 20,162 cohort and 53 rejection mints share 1 mint, and within the covered interval none, a count too small to be informative. Both windows show nearly disjoint outputs, agreeing in direction but not in magnitude. Collector configuration, not only market behaviour, therefore shapes which tokens an on-chain study observes, and the paper proposes reporting cross-collector overlap and collector coverage as a routine check. Data and a script that re-derives every number are openly available.

q-fin.TR↗