Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/3383455.3422568acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicaifConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Learning-based trading strategies in the face of market manipulation

Published: 07 October 2021 Publication History

Abstract

We study learning-based trading strategies in markets where prices can be manipulated through spoofing: the practice of submitting spurious orders to mislead traders who use market information. To reduce the vulnerability of learning traders to such manipulation, we propose two variations based on the standard heuristic belief learning (HBL) trading strategy, which learns transaction probabilities from market activities observed in an order book. The first variation selectively ignores orders at certain price levels, particularly where spoof orders are likely to be placed. The second considers the full order book, but adjusts its limit order price to correct for bias in decisions based on the learned heuristic beliefs. We employ agent-based simulation to evaluate these variations on two criteria: effectiveness in non-manipulated markets and robustness against manipulation. Background traders can adopt the (non-learning) zero intelligence strategies or HBL, in its basic form or the two variations. We conduct empirical game-theoretic analysis upon simulated payoffs to derive approximate strategic equilibria, and compare equilibrium outcomes across a variety of trading environments. Results show that agents can strategically make use of the option to block orders to improve robustness against spoofing, while retaining a comparable competitiveness in non-manipulated markets. Our second HBL variation exhibits a general improvement over standard HBL, in markets with and without manipulation. Further explorations suggest that traders can enjoy both improved profitability and robustness by combining the two proposed variations.

References

[1]
Bruno Biais and Paul Woolley. 2012. High Frequency Trading. Technical Report. Toulouse University.
[2]
Tanmoy Chakraborty and Michael Kearns. 2011. Market making and mean reversion. In 11th ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce. 307--314.
[3]
Thomas E. Copeland and Dan Galai. 1983. Information effects on the bid-ask spread. Journal of Finance 38, 5 (1983), 1457--1469.
[4]
J. Doyne Farmer, Paolo Patelli, and Ilija I. Zovko. 2005. The predictive power of zero intelligence in financial markets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102 (2005), 2254--2259.
[5]
Thierry Foucault, Ailsa Röell, and Patrik Sandås. 2003. Market making with costly monitoring: An analysis of the SOES controversy. Review of Financial Studies 16, 2 (2003), 345--384.
[6]
Steven Gjerstad. 2007. The competitive market paradox. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 31 (2007), 1753--1780.
[7]
Dhananjay K. Gode and Shyam Sunder. 1993. Allocative efficiency of markets with zero-intelligence traders: Market as a partial substitute for individual rationality. Journal of Political Economy (1993), 119--137.
[8]
Blake LeBaron. 2006. Agent-based computational finance. In Handbook of Computational Economics, Leigh Tesfatsion and Kenneth L. Judd (Eds.). Vol. 2. Elsevier, 1187--1233.
[9]
Mark Paddrik, Roy Hayes, Andrew Todd amd Steve Yang, Peter Beling, and William Scherer. 2012. An agent based model of the E-Mini S&P 500 applied to Flash Crash analysis. In IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence for Financial Engineering and Economics. 1--8.
[10]
Matt Prewit. 2012. High-frequency trading: Should regulators do more. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 19 (2012), 131--161.
[11]
G. Tesauro and J.L. Bredin. 2002. Strategic sequential bidding in auctions using dynamic programming. First International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems (2002), 591--598.
[12]
G. Tesauro and R. Das. 2001. High-performance bidding agents for the continuous double auction. Third ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (2001), 206--209.
[13]
Elaine Wah, Sébastien Lahaie, and David M. Pennock. 2016. An Empirical Game-Theoretic Analysis of Price Discovery in Prediction Markets. In 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 510--516.
[14]
Elaine Wah, Mason Wright, and Michael P. Wellman. 2017. Welfare effects of market making in continuous double auctions. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 59 (2017), 613--650.
[15]
Xintong Wang, Yevgeniy Voroveychik, and Michael P. Wellman. 2018. A Cloaking Mechanism to Mitigate Market Manipulation. In 27th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 541--547.
[16]
Xintong Wang and Michael P. Wellman. 2017. Spoofing the limit order book: An agent-based model. In 16th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 651--659.
[17]
Xintong Wang and Michael P. Wellman. 2020. Market Manipulation: An Adversarial Learning Framework for Detection and Evasion. In 29th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 4626--4632.
[18]
Michael P. Wellman. 2016. Putting the agent in agent-based modeling. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 30 (2016), 1175--1189.
[19]
Bryce Wiedenbeck and Michael P. Wellman. 2012. Scaling simulation-based game analysis through deviation-preserving reduction. In 11th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems. 931--938.

Cited By

View all
  • (2021)Spoofing the Limit Order Book: A Strategic Agent-Based AnalysisGames10.3390/g1202004612:2(46)Online publication date: 24-May-2021

Index Terms

  1. Learning-based trading strategies in the face of market manipulation

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    ICAIF '20: Proceedings of the First ACM International Conference on AI in Finance
    October 2020
    422 pages
    ISBN:9781450375849
    DOI:10.1145/3383455
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 07 October 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. agent-based simulation
    2. market manipulation
    3. trading agents

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    ICAIF '20
    Sponsor:
    ICAIF '20: ACM International Conference on AI in Finance
    October 15 - 16, 2020
    New York, New York

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)27
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
    Reflects downloads up to 13 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2021)Spoofing the Limit Order Book: A Strategic Agent-Based AnalysisGames10.3390/g1202004612:2(46)Online publication date: 24-May-2021

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media