Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 49 references

Decoding OTC Government Bond Market Liquidity: An ABM Model for Market Dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Using a price-free trading rule, the paper's agent-based model reproduces Australia's interbank bond turnover share and ties liquidity to market-maker diversity and costs.

desk verdict A clean stylized ABM whose central validation claim is a circular fit to one aggregate statistic, with model dispersion far beyond the empirical range. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16331 v1 pith:6YKCUIE2 submitted 2024-12-15 q-fin.TR cs.AI

Alicia Vidler , Toby Walsh This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.TRcs.AI
keywords bondmarketsimulationsliquiditystabilityagent-basedmodellingOTCgovernmentmarketsmicrostructuremakerheterogeneityno-pricetrading
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper builds an agent-based model (ABM) of the over-the-counter government bond market, populated by four market makers with distinct client bases and operating costs, and shows that the median share of market-maker-to-market-maker trading in simulated runs (28.74%) closely matches the 27.23% average reported for Australia's secondary market. The authors then use this calibrated model to test three policy-relevant hypotheses: that heterogeneity among market makers raises trading and liquidity more than simply adding more market makers; that shrinking client-base diversity nearly shuts down interbank trading; and that doubling market-making costs collapses the market within about 17 time steps. If the model is right, it gives regulators a low-cost sandbox for experimenting with OTC bond market design in concentrated markets like Australia and the UK, where bilateral trading leaves little public data.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the agent-based model itself. Market makers are placed on a 50x50 grid holding 2,500 passive clients; each market maker has a fixed operating cost (a 'metabolism') and a client breadth (a vision range) drawn at the start of each run, and these two parameters are the levers used in the policy experiments. Inter-market-maker trading follows a no-price rule: each agent computes its welfare from bond and cash holdings weighted by its costs, and a trade is executed only if the product of the two welfare terms would not decrease for either agent. The exchange quantity is set by the geometric mean of the two agents' marginal rates of substitution (each agent's relative need for cash versus bonds), a choice the paper justifies as avoiding bias from extreme values. This welfare-product rule is what lets the model generate interbank trading without any price mechanism, and it is also the component whose realism is most load-bearing for the paper's conclusions.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to run the same model under a uniform grid search over the calibration parameters (client breadth and cost ranges) and compute the predicted interbank share; if the median moves far from the official 27.23% average, the reported 28.74% match is an artifact of the opportunistically chosen parameters rather than a validation of the rule.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a deliberately simple, price-free simulation—four market makers on a grid servicing passive clients and trading with each other only when both parties' welfare, evaluated through a marginal-rate-of-substitution condition, improves—reproduces the macro-level interbank turnover share of a real OTC bond market. From that calibrated baseline, the authors find that widening the diversity of client-base sizes (from a range of 1–5 to 1–50 units) lifts interbank trading from near zero to about 28% of interactions, while raising the number of market makers from 4 to 16 with the same narrow diversity restores only about 6.4%. They also find that doubling fixed operating costs shortens average market-maker lifespan from more than 1,500 time steps (with at least one agent still alive in 68% of runs) to under 17 time steps, which they equate with a loss of stability. The model therefore asserts that micro-structural heterogeneity and cost structure are first-order drivers of liquidity and stability in bilateral government bond markets.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the no-price, welfare-improvement trading rule is a faithful abstraction of how real OTC market makers decide to trade, even though the rule is not derived from transaction-level data or a behavioral theory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Markets with a wider spread of market-maker client bases should show more interbank trading and greater liquidity than markets with many similar market makers.
  • Lowering the fixed operating costs of market makers should lengthen their survival and stabilize the market, while doubling those costs pushes the market into collapse within about 17 time steps.
  • A no-price ABM that matches the Australian interbank turnover share suggests that macro-level liquidity patterns can emerge purely from micro-level heterogeneity and cost structures.
  • The calibrated model offers a platform for regulatory experiments on concentrated OTC bond markets where transaction-level data are unavailable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The match between the simulated 28.74% and the official 27.23% interbank share rests on a single aggregate target; a stronger validation would attach additional empirical moments, such as the quarterly distribution or the concentration among the four major banks, which the paper does not report.
  • The conclusion that diversity beats headcount may be a property of the welfare-product, no-price trading rule; testing the same grid environment with a price-based clearing mechanism would show whether the principle generalizes.
  • If the authors' expectation that results carry over to UK and Canadian markets is correct, the model could serve as a lightweight policy sandbox for evaluating market-making obligations or cost subsidies before implementation; this extension is not in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a bespoke agent-based model (ABM) of the Australian OTC government bond market, adapted from Sugarscape, with four market makers (MMs) interacting with static clients on a 50x50 grid. MMs trade among themselves using a price-free rule based on mutual welfare improvement and marginal rates of substitution, and with clients they service within a fixed grid 'vision'. The model is calibrated to the AOFM-reported average interbank turnover share of 27.23%, and the authors claim that a simulated median MM-to-MM trading occurrence of 28.74% 'validates' the model. The paper then uses the calibrated model to test hypotheses: that heterogeneity of MMs (HP2/HP3) rather than their number increases trading, liquidity, and stability, and that lower business costs (HP4) improve market stability and agent longevity. The authors conclude that greater agent diversity and lower costs improve liquidity and stability, and they provide code on GitHub.

Significance. If the validation were sound, this ABM could be a useful policy laboratory for studying OTC government bond market design, an area with sparse public data. The paper addresses an important topic and makes a constructive effort to use publicly available AOFM data. The provision of source code and the explicit focus on a stylized but policy-relevant environment are strengths. However, the central quantitative validation is based on a single aggregate moment that is internally inconsistently reported, and the model's output dispersion is grossly incompatible with the empirical distribution. Moreover, the qualitative conclusions rest on a behavioral trading rule that is not empirically or theoretically grounded and is not subjected to sensitivity analysis. As such, the paper currently offers a proof-of-concept rather than an empirically validated model, and its significance for policy insight is correspondingly limited.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV and Tables I/III] Section IV claims that a median MM-to-MM trading occurrence of 28.74% 'aligns closely' with the AOFM 27.23% average and 'validates our model's ability to replicate real-world trading patterns.' This claim is not supported by the paper's own reported statistics. Table I gives an empirical quarterly standard deviation of 4.54 percentage points and a range of 15.94%-36.69%, whereas Table III reports a model standard deviation of 27.48 percentage points and a range of 1.22%-95.11%. A process whose simulation-to-simulation dispersion is six times the empirical SD, and whose range spans roughly 1%-95%, does not replicate the first and second order attributes the authors claim to match. The claimed median is also internally inconsistent: the text reports 28.74%, Table III reports 28.54%, and Section IV.B describes HP1 as 'approximately 27.2%.' Because Section IV states that calibration sets were 'explored opportunistically,' the median match is a fitted value, not an independent prediction. The validation therefore fails on the manuscript's own evidence.
  2. [III.D] The trading rule in Section III.D eliminates any price mechanism and triggers trades only when both agents' MRS-based welfare products improve, with the exchange quantity set by the geometric mean of their MRS values. This rule is the sole mechanism that generates both the quantitative trade shares and the qualitative results for HP2-HP4, but it is not derived from data or from a recognized theoretical foundation, and no sensitivity analysis over alternative trade-matching rules is provided. The qualitative conclusions (e.g., that heterogeneity increases trading, or that lower costs improve stability) are therefore conditional on an unvalidated behavioral engine. The paper needs either to ground this rule empirically or theoretically, or to demonstrate that the main qualitative findings are robust to reasonable variations in the rule (e.g., a price-based bargaining mechanism, alternative exchange quantities, or alternative welfare functions).
  3. [IV.A (HP2/HP3)] The HP2/HP3 comparisons confound heterogeneity with the level of client breadth. Reducing the client base range from 1-50 to 1-5 units simultaneously decreases the mean and maximum client access and also reduces the dispersion of client sizes across agents. The paper concludes that 'heterogeneity of market makers rather than simply the number of agents contributes to greater market trading activity,' but the experiments do not isolate heterogeneity from the overall level of client access. An experiment that holds the mean client breadth constant and varies only its dispersion (e.g., 1-50 vs. 20-30) is needed to support the stated conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [IV] The reported median values for HP1 are inconsistent across the text (28.74%), Table III (28.54%), and Section IV.B ('approximately 27.2%'); these should be reconciled to a single value.
  2. [III.D] The welfare and MRS formulas are garbled by the typesetting (e.g., 'W elf areai,b = A mb mb + mc b'); all variables should be defined and the equations typeset properly.
  3. [III.B] The statement that clients total 2,500 'based on data from [2]' is questionable: reference [2] is an analysis of the 2022 gilt market crisis and does not obviously provide a count of Australian OTC bond market clients; a specific source should be cited.
  4. [Figure 2 caption] The caption 'A=4 Distribution across Runs by Trading Percent' is ambiguous; 'A' should be defined as the number of agents, and the figure should be described more clearly.
  5. [IV] The text notes that calibration sets were 'explored opportunistically rather than exhaustively testing all permutations'; this limitation should be disclosed much earlier in the paper (ideally in the abstract or introduction) because it directly affects the strength of the validation claim.
  6. [I] The assertion that 'There is no reason to suppose that results formed on the Australian market cannot be generalised to other markets' is an unsupported generalization; the paper should at least note structural differences among the Australian, UK, and Canadian markets that could affect transferability.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

Central 'validation' reduces to calibration: the AOFM interbank share is both the calibration target and the claimed confirmatory benchmark.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Results (HP1 calibration and validation paragraphs)]
    "We calibrated our ABM to the Australian MM environment, successfully replicating the observed first and second order attributes. ... We explored calibration sets opportunistically. ... Our simulations reveal a median MM-to-MM trading occurrence of 28.74% of all interactions. This median trading activity aligns closely with data published by the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM), which reports an eight-year average interbank bond turnover of 27.3% of traded volumes. This close correspondence validates our model's ability to replicate real-world trading patterns."

    The empirical statistic used for validation (AOFM interbank turnover share, 27.23%/27.3%) is the same aggregate the authors tuned against when they 'explored calibration sets opportunistically' and selected the 'Australian calibration' (HP1). Reporting the resulting median (28.74%) as a 'close correspondence' that 'validates' the model is therefore presenting a fitted value as an independent prediction. The match is by construction of the calibration search, not an out-of-sample test. No other external benchmark is used; Table III's simulation dispersion (SD 27.48, range 1.22-95.11) actually contradicts the claimed replication of 'second order attributes' (empirical SD 4.54, IQR 6.33), confirming that only the central tendency was matched.

full rationale

The only quantitative validation in the paper is the comparison of the simulated median MM-to-MM trading share (28.74%) with the AOFM empirical average (27.23%). Since the authors state that they 'explored calibration sets opportunistically' and designated the resulting set as the 'Australian calibration,' this comparison is a fit, not an independent prediction: the target statistic entered the model-building process, and the same statistic is then reported as confirming the model. This is the classic fitted-input-called-prediction pattern. The paper does not rely on self-citation for this step; the mechanism is original to the model. The diversity (HP2/HP3) and cost (HP4) experiments are internal counterfactuals rather than empirical predictions, so I do not flag them as separate circularity, though their outcomes are strongly shaped by the trading rule that requires 'offsetting needs.' The numerical inconsistencies (28.74% vs 28.54% in Table III vs 'approximately 27.2%' in Section IV.B; simulation SD 27.48 vs empirical 4.54) further undermine the claimed validation but are correctness concerns, not additional circularity. Overall score 7: the central claim reduces by construction to the calibration target, but the model itself has independent structural content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces several free parameters (client breadth range, cost ranges, initial accumulations, resource mound configuration) that are chosen by hand or 'opportunistically' calibrated to match one aggregate statistic. The key axioms are the trading rule that eliminates prices and relies on MRS differences, the passive/transparent client assumption, and the use of the AOFM interbank share as the sole validation target. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Client breadth range (vi) = Uniform(1, 50) for HP1; Uniform(1, 5) for HP2/HP3
    Range of grid cells each market maker can access; chosen arbitrarily, affects trading opportunities.
  • Cost per time step (mb, mc) = Uniform(1, 5) for HP1; Uniform(5, 10) for HP4
    Per-step operational costs; chosen arbitrarily, affects survival and MRS.
  • Initial resource accumulations (Ab, Ac) = Uniform(35, 55)
    Starting bonds and cash; chosen arbitrarily.
  • Number of agents (N) = 4 in HP1/HP2/HP4; 16 in HP3
    Represents the four Australian major banks; HP3 tests an alternative.
  • Size of client base = 2,500 clients on 50x50 grid
    Based on a rough reference to [2], but essentially chosen.
  • Resource mound configuration = Four mounds with values decreasing from centre; exact parameters not given
    Assumption about the distribution of bond/cash holdings; no data source cited.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Clients are passive, always ready to trade, and fully transparent about their resources within an MM's vision range.
    Stated in Section III-E as a simplification due to lack of client-level data.
  • domain assumption Market makers truthfully reveal resource levels and do not store information about past accumulations.
    Stated in Section III-E, justified by fair-dealing regulations.
  • domain assumption No coalition formation among market makers.
    Stated in Section III-E, aligned with regulatory constraints.
  • ad hoc to paper Trading without a price mechanism, based on welfare improvement and MRS differences, captures the essence of OTC bond market trades.
    Introduced in Section III-D; no empirical or theoretical derivation, only a plausible abstraction.
  • domain assumption The AOFM quarterly interbank share (mean 27.23%) is the correct target statistic for calibration.
    Used in Section IV as the sole validation target.
  • domain assumption Sugarscape framework is an appropriate base for modelling OTC bond markets.
    Stated in Section III, based on similarity of asynchronous heterogeneous agent interactions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Decoding OTC Government Bond Market Liquidity: An ABM Model for Market Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6YKCUIE2

@misc{pith2026250116331,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Decoding OTC Government Bond Market Liquidity: An ABM Model for Market Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6YKCUIE2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16331}
}
read the original abstract

The over-the-counter (OTC) government bond markets are characterised by their bilateral trading structures, which pose unique challenges to understanding and ensuring market stability and liquidity. In this paper, we develop a bespoke ABM that simulates market-maker interactions within a stylised government bond market. The model focuses on the dynamics of liquidity and stability in the secondary trading of government bonds, particularly in concentrated markets like those found in Australia and the UK. Through this simulation, we test key hypotheses around improving market stability, focusing on the effects of agent diversity, business costs, and client base size. We demonstrate that greater agent diversity enhances market liquidity and that reducing the costs of market-making can improve overall market stability. The model offers insights into computational finance by simulating trading without price transparency, highlighting how micro-structural elements can affect macro-level market outcomes. This research contributes to the evolving field of computational finance by employing computational intelligence techniques to better understand the fundamental mechanics of government bond markets, providing actionable insights for both academics and practitioners.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16331 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Quarterly Interbank Percentage of Secondary Aus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A=4 Client and Cost reduction (median 0.8%). Stress [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. N = 16 - distribution of trade occurrences, as a percentage for each simulation. Cumulative distribution shows a mean of just 6.49% as reported Whilst not a complete analysis of all possibilities, these two specific examples demonstrate that the number of agents cannot make up for the benefits that come from having a wide [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: High costs, very short life span: Market Instability [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Harris, Trading and Exchanges: Market Microstructure for Practi- tioners

    L. Harris, Trading and Exchanges: Market Microstructure for Practi- tioners. Oxford University Press, New York, 2003

    work page 2003

  2. [2]

    An anatomy of the 2022 gilt market crisis,

    G. Pinter, “An anatomy of the 2022 gilt market crisis,” SSRN Electronic Journal, vol. Bank of England Working Paper 1019, 2023

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Wooldridge, An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems, Second Edition

    M. Wooldridge, An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems, Second Edition . John Wiley and Sons, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    Financial stability,

    W. B. Group, “Financial stability,” accessed: [25 Sep 2024]. [Online]. Available: https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/gfdr/ gfdr-2016/background/financial-stability

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Financial stability in focus: The fpc’s approach to assessing risks in market-based finance,

    B. of England, “Financial stability in focus: The fpc’s approach to assessing risks in market-based finance,” 2023, accessed: [25 Sep 2024]. [Online]. Available: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/ financial-stability-in-focus/2023/october-2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Using surrogate models to calibrate agent-based model parameters under data scarcity,

    P. Avegliano and J. S. Sichman, “Using surrogate models to calibrate agent-based model parameters under data scarcity,” inProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Autonomous Agents and MultiAgent Systems, 2019, pp. 1781–1783

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Toward policy explanations for multi-agent reinforcement learning,

    K. Boggess, S. Kraus, and L. Feng, “Toward policy explanations for multi-agent reinforcement learning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.12568 , 2022

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    Towards a fully rl-based market simulator,

    L. Ardon, N. Vadori, T. Spooner, M. Xu, J. Vann, and S. Ganesh, “Towards a fully rl-based market simulator,” Proceedings of the Second ACM International Conference on AI in Finance , Nov 2021. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3490354.3494372

    work page arXiv 2021

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Towards multi-agent reinforcement learning driven over-the-counter market simulations,

    N. Vadori, L. Ardon, S. Ganesh, T. Spooner, S. Amrouni, J. Vann, M. Xu, Z. Zheng, T. Balch, and M. Veloso, “Towards multi-agent reinforcement learning driven over-the-counter market simulations,” 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Reinforcement learning for market making in a multi-agent dealer market,

    S. Ganesh, N. Vadori, M. Xu, H. Zheng, P. Reddy, and M. Veloso, “Reinforcement learning for market making in a multi-agent dealer market,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.05892 , 2019

    1911 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Liquidity in competitive dealer markets,

    P. Bank, I. Ekren, and J. Muhle-Karbe, “Liquidity in competitive dealer markets,” Mathematical Finance, vol. 31, no. 3, p. 827–856, Apr 2021. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mafi.12305

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Algorithmic market making in foreign exchange cash markets with hedging and market impact,

    A. Barzykin, P. Bergault, and O. Gu ´eant, “Algorithmic market making in foreign exchange cash markets with hedging and market impact,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.06974, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A stochastic partial differential equation model for limit order book dynamics,

    R. Cont and M. S. Muller, “A stochastic partial differential equation model for limit order book dynamics,” SIAM Journal on Financial Mathematics, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 744–787, 2021

    2021

  6. [14]

    Gemm guidebook: A guide to the roles of the dmo and primary dealers in the uk government bond market,

    B. of England, “Gemm guidebook: A guide to the roles of the dmo and primary dealers in the uk government bond market,” Bank Of England , December 2004. [Online]. Available: https: //dmo.gov.uk/media/22bbjndz/guidebook200921.pdf

    2004

  7. [15]

    Bond market players call time on $6 trillion aussie exchange,

    Australian Financial Review, “Bond market players call time on $6 trillion aussie exchange,” 2023, accessed: 2023-04-23. [Online]. Available: https://www.afr.com/chanticleer/ bond-market-players-call-time-on-6-trillion-aussie-exchange-20230525-p5db5n

    2023

  8. [16]

    Government-bond-markets-in-advanced- economies-during-the-pandemic,

    R. B. of Australia, “Government-bond-markets-in-advanced- economies-during-the-pandemic,” Reserave Bank of Australia , 2021. [Online]. Available: www.rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2021/sep/ government-bond-markets-in-advanced-economies-during-the-pandemic. html

    2021

  9. [17]

    Modeling term structures of defaultable bonds,

    D. Duffie and K. J. Singleton, “Modeling term structures of defaultable bonds,” Review of Financial Studies , 1999

    1999

  10. [18]

    Bloomberg, marketaxess and tradeweb sign joint venture agreement,

    TradeWeb, “Bloomberg, marketaxess and tradeweb sign joint venture agreement,” 2023, accessed: 2023-04-23. [Online]. Avail- able: https://www.tradeweb.com/newsroom/media-center/news-releases/ bloomberg-marketaxess-and-tradeweb-sign-joint-venture-agreement

    2023

  11. [19]

    Still the World’s Safe Haven?

    D. Duffie, “Still the World’s Safe Haven?” Hutchins Working Paper , vol. 62, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    A simple approach to valuing risky fixed and floating rate debt,

    F. A. Longstaff and E. S. Schwartz, “A simple approach to valuing risky fixed and floating rate debt,” Journal of Finance , 1995

    1995

  13. [21]

    Valuing corporate securities: Some effects of bond indenture provisions,

    F. Black and J. C. Cox, “Valuing corporate securities: Some effects of bond indenture provisions,” Journal of Finance , 1976

    1976

  14. [22]

    On the pricing of corporate debt: The risk structure of interest rates,

    R. C. Merton, “On the pricing of corporate debt: The risk structure of interest rates,” Journal of Finance , 1974

    1974

  15. [23]

    On a corporate bond pricing model with credit rating migration risksand stochastic interest rate,

    J. Liang, H.-M. Yin, X. Chen, and Y . Wu, “On a corporate bond pricing model with credit rating migration risksand stochastic interest rate,” Quantitative Finance and Economics , vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 300–319,

  16. [24]

    Dynamic conditioning and credit correlation baskets,

    C. Albanese and A. Vidler, “Dynamic conditioning and credit correlation baskets,” University Library of Munich, Germany, MPRA Paper, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc: pra:mprapa:8368

    2008

  17. [25]

    An agent-based model of corporate bond trading,

    K. Braun-Munzinger, Z. Liu, and A. Turrell, “An agent-based model of corporate bond trading,” Quantitative Finance, 2018

    2018

  18. [26]

    An application of agent-based modeling to market structure policy: the case of the u.s. tick size pilot program and market maker profitability,

    C. Collver, “An application of agent-based modeling to market structure policy: the case of the u.s. tick size pilot program and market maker profitability,” SEC, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Predicting the behavior of dealers in over-the-counter corporate bond markets,

    Y . Lin, J. Xue, and L. Raschid, “Predicting the behavior of dealers in over-the-counter corporate bond markets,” ICAIF, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Agent based model,

    S. Bai, W. Raskob, W. Raskob, T. M ¨uller, and T. M ¨uller, “Agent based model,” Radioprotection, 2020

    2020

  21. [29]

    Val- idation of agent-based models in economics and finance,

    G. Fagiolo, M. Guerini, F. Lamperti, A. Moneta, and A. Roventini, “Val- idation of agent-based models in economics and finance,” Simulation Foundations, Methods and Applications , 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Learn- ing and cognition in financial markets: A paradigm shift for agent-based models,

    J. Lussange, A. Belianin, S. Bourgeois-Gironde, and B. Gutkin, “Learn- ing and cognition in financial markets: A paradigm shift for agent-based models,” IntelliSys, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Best practices in programming agent-based models in economics and finance,

    A. Vermeir and H. Bersini, “Best practices in programming agent-based models in economics and finance,” Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 2015

    2015

  24. [32]

    The adaptive markets hypothesis: Market efficiency from an evolutionary perspective,

    A. W. Lo, “The adaptive markets hypothesis: Market efficiency from an evolutionary perspective,” The Journal of Portfolio Management , 2004

    2004

  25. [33]

    J. M. Epstein and R. L. Axtell, Growing Artificial Societies: Social Science from the Bottom Up , ser. MIT Press Books. The MIT Press, 1996. [Online]. Available: https://ideas.repec.org/b/mtp/titles/ 0262550253.html

    1996

  26. [34]

    Multi-level mesa

    T. D. Pike, “Multi-level mesa.” arXiv: Multiagent Systems , 2019

    2019

  27. [35]

    Mesa: An Agent-Based Modeling Framework,

    David Masad and Jacqueline Kazil, “Mesa: An Agent-Based Modeling Framework,” in Proceedings of the 14th Python in Science Conference , Kathryn Huff and James Bergstra, Eds., 2015, pp. 51 – 58

    2015

  28. [36]

    Growing the simulation ecosystem: introducing mesa data to provide transparent, accessible, and extensible data pipelines for simulation development,

    T. Pike, S. Golden, D. Lowdermilk, B. Luong, and B. Rosado, “Growing the simulation ecosystem: introducing mesa data to provide transparent, accessible, and extensible data pipelines for simulation development,” SIMULATION, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Utilizing python for agent-based modeling: The mesa framework,

    J. Kazil, D. Masad, D. Masad, and A. Crooks, “Utilizing python for agent-based modeling: The mesa framework,” SBP-BRiMS, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Heterogeneous beliefs and routes to chaos in a simple asset pricing model,

    W. A. Brock and C. H. Hommes, “Heterogeneous beliefs and routes to chaos in a simple asset pricing model,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 1235–1274, 1998

    1998

  31. [39]

    Recent Disruptions and potential reforms in the U.S Treasury market: A STAFF PROGRESS REPORT,

    T. U. T. Department and Board, “Recent Disruptions and potential reforms in the U.S Treasury market: A STAFF PROGRESS REPORT,” U.S Federal Reserve, no. May, 2011

    2011

  32. [40]

    A comprehensive framework for uncovering non- linearity and chaos in financial markets: Empirical evidence for four major stock market indices,

    L. Inglada-perez, “A comprehensive framework for uncovering non- linearity and chaos in financial markets: Empirical evidence for four major stock market indices,” Entropy, vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 1–26, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Agent-Based Modeling in Economics and Finance: Past, Present, and Future,

    R. L. Axtell and J. D. Farmer, “Agent-Based Modeling in Economics and Finance: Past, Present, and Future,” Journal of Economic Literature, pp. 1–96, 2022

    2022

  34. [42]

    Abides (agent-based interactive discrete event simulation),

    T. Balch and team, “Abides (agent-based interactive discrete event simulation),” 2020, a high-performance, agent-based market simulation platform. [Online]. Available: https://github.com/abides-sim/abides

    2020

  35. [43]

    Utilizing python for agent-based modeling: The mesa framework,

    J. Kazil, D. Masad, and A. Crooks, “Utilizing python for agent-based modeling: The mesa framework,” in Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling, R. Thomson, H. Bisgin, C. Dancy, A. Hyder, and M. Hussain, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2020, pp. 308–317

    2020

  36. [45]

    Market Making in Bond Markets,

    J. Cheshire, “Market Making in Bond Markets,” RBA Bulletin March Quater 2015 , no. March, pp. 63–74, 2015. [Online]. Available: https://rba.gov.au/publications/bulletin/2015/mar/7.html

    2015

  37. [46]

    Official Operations in the Gilt Market An Operational Notice ,

    B. of England, “Official Operations in the Gilt Market An Operational Notice ,” Bank of England , vol. December, 2023

    2023

  38. [47]

    The rationale of the use of the geometric average as an investment index,

    C. D. RICH, “The rationale of the use of the geometric average as an investment index,” Journal of the Institute of Actuaries (1886-1994), vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 338–339, 1948. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41138034

    1994

  39. [48]

    Best execution,

    TP ICAP, “Best execution,” May 2021, accessed: [2 Jan 2024]. [Online]. Available: https://tpicap.comBestExecution.pdf

    2021

  40. [2015]

    Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06012

    [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.06012

    arXiv

  41. [2017]

    Available: https://www.aimspress.com/article/doi/10

    [Online]. Available: https://www.aimspress.com/article/doi/10. 3934/QFE.2017.3.300

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.