Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Herding and Liquidity in Order-Book Markets. II. Fundamental Anchoring and the Resilience of Liquidity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A liquidity crisis in this model is a failure of fundamental anchoring, not of market making.

desk verdict Careful ABM with clean controls, but the anchor result is partly definitional and the no-contagion null is conditional on the channel set; still deserves serious refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16970 v1 pith:AIG4APBY submitted 2026-07-18 q-fin.TR

Jan Novotny This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-fin.TR
keywords marketmicrostructurelimitorderbookliquidityagent-basedmodelfundamentalvaluemeanreversionfinancialcontagionsystemicrisk
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

This paper tries to establish that in a minimal order-book market, the restoring force that keeps liquidity two-sided is the anchoring of resting quotes to a slowly moving fundamental value, not the willingness of market makers to provide depth. The author shows this causally by sweeping a dial that blends the fundamental into the quoting reference from fully anchored to fully price-tracking, which removes mean reversion and lets a leverage-driven fire-sale self-sustain. Separately, the paper couples a stressed source market to a calm receiver through six increasingly strong transmission channels and reports a clean null: the receiver's stress never depends on whether the source is genuinely stressed, at any anchor strength. The upshot is a sharp distinction between a market that collapses once its anchor is removed and a market that catches its neighbor's collapse. If right, the paper reframes liquidity crises as failures of fundamental anchoring rather than of market-maker withdrawal.

What carries the argument

The anchor dial, r_t = a f_t + (1-a) p_t, blends the provider quoting reference from the fundamental value (a=1) to the current price (a=0), continuously turning the restoring force on and off while changing nothing else. The order parameter is phi_empty, the long-run fraction of events at which the book has no mid-price (one-sidedness), which defines liquidity stress. The transmission battery is a hierarchy of six coupling channels of increasing strength, each tested with a decisive matched control that reproduces the coupling's order flow under a calm source, so a mechanical drain of liquidity is separated from a genuine transfer of the source's stress state.

What would settle it

Build the coupling this paper deliberately omits—for instance, a shared collateral constraint that marks the receiver's falling price into the positions of agents who also hold the source, or a single population leveraged in both books at once—and ask whether the receiver's stress then rises when the source is stressed but stays flat when the source is calm. If a receiver that is stable under a calm source ignites under a stressed source, the paper's no-contagion claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that fundamental-value anchoring of liquidity provision is the intrinsic stabiliser of an order-book market. Liquidity providers post quotes around a blend of a slowly varying fundamental and the current price; at full anchor, a shock that sends the price away from value is met by fresh two-sided depth at the fundamental, so the price mean-reverts and the book refills, while at zero anchor depth reappears at the dislocated price and nothing pulls it back. The paper confirms causation by dialling the anchor down: post-shock one-sidedness rises roughly eightfold and stays elevated, and a leveraged margin-call spiral that is calm-stable when anchored genuinely fires once th

Load-bearing premise

The no-contagion null assumes that none of the six transmission channels carries the source's stress state into the receiver's balance sheet; the paper acknowledges that a coupling such as shared collateral marked to the receiver's own falling price, or agents leveraged across both books at once, was not built, and that if such a state-carrying channel were added, contagion might appear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A demonstrated withdrawal mechanism—even a synchronized, funding-constrained population pulling depth and widening spreads—is necessary-looking but not sufficient evidence of contagion; the adjudicating test is whether receiver stress tracks source stress beyond the coupling's flow.
  • Intrinsic fragility and contagiousness are separable: a market can collapse on its own once its anchor is removed without ever catching a neighbour's collapse, so empirical studies should not infer contagion from common crashes alone.
  • Preserving a fundamental reference for resting liquidity is a stabilising design principle; policies that re-anchor quotes to value would improve resilience to fire-sale spirals, while suppressing market-maker withdrawal alone would not.
  • At zero anchor the leverage spiral amplifies receiver stress well beyond a flow-matched drain, but this is intrinsic self-amplification, not transmission; the stressed-versus-calm control remains null at every anchor strength.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this null carries beyond the vehicle, empirical cross-market liquidity commonality may reflect common shocks and shared funding conditions rather than state-carried transmission; a testable implication is that once a receiver's own flow conditions are controlled, its neighbour's stress level adds no predictive power.
  • The missing coupling the paper identifies—shared collateral marked to the receiver's own falling price, or agents leveraged across both books at once—is the natural next experiment; building it would reveal whether the null is a property of anchored order books or an artefact of this vehicle's couplings.
  • The anchor dial suggests a measurement strategy: estimate the effective anchoring weight from the speed and completeness of post-shock price reversion in real markets, and test whether assets with tighter fundamental anchoring show faster recovery from one-sidedness.
  • The separability result implies a policy hierarchy: strengthening intrinsic anchoring is a more direct route to crisis resilience than attempting to suppress withdrawal behaviour, since even a full market-maker exit fails to ignite an anchored book.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an agent-based order-book model in which resting liquidity is posted around a fundamental value, with momentum herders as the destabilizing flow. Using the one-sidedness of the book as an order parameter, it claims (1) that the fundamental anchor is the intrinsic stabilizer, causally confirmed by sweeping the anchor strength a in Eq. (2); (2) that a stressed source market does not transmit liquidity stress to a coupled calm receiver through any of six progressively stronger channels; and (3) that intrinsic fragility and cross-market contagion are separable. The paper is careful about matched stressed-versus-calm controls, foundation gates, and openly reports its scope and limitations.

Significance. If taken in its explicitly scoped form, the paper is a useful contribution to order-book agent-based modeling: it provides a fully reproducible model and code, uses matched-seed controls, verifies foundation gates, and proposes a clean distinction between mechanical liquidity drains and genuine state-carrying contagion. The positive anchor result is best read as an architectural property of the model rather than an empirical discovery. The no-contagion result is a conditional null about the specific six channels built, and the paper's own limitations section concedes that a balance-sheet state-carrying coupling could change the answer. The significance is therefore moderate: it is a well-executed negative-result study for a particular model vehicle, not a general theorem about cross-market contagion.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.3, Eq. (2)] The 'causal confirmation' of the anchor as the stabilizer is largely definitional. Setting a=0 in Eq. (2) makes providers quote around the current price, so by construction there is no reference price exerting a restoring force. The observation that mean reversion vanishes at a=0 is an ablation of the model rule, not an independent test that identifies the anchor as the cause. The paper should explicitly reframe this as a model-derived counterfactual rather than an empirical or causal discovery, or provide a version in which anchoring strength is varied without directly changing the quoting reference.
  2. [§5.4, §6 (Scope and limitations)] The headline no-contagion claim — 'the receiver’s stress is independent of whether its neighbour is stressed' — is supported only by failure to reject the null at moderate z-scores (Table 1: z=1.03, 1.00, 0.03; anchor sweep z from -0.48 to -0.09). No equivalence bounds, TOST, or confidence intervals are given, so 'independent' is stronger than 'not significantly different' and small true effects could be missed. Moreover, the paper itself concedes that none of the six channels carries the source's price into the receiver's balance sheet, so the abstract's unconditional 'cannot' overclaims. The conclusion should be restricted to the six implemented channels and should report equivalence testing or confidence intervals for the null.
  3. [§4.4, Table 1] The calibration is narrow: one stressed source corner, one sub-critical receiver, and one maker/funding/holder parameterization. The paper acknowledges the tension between keeping the receiver stable and bounding inventory, but the claim 'at every anchor strength' rests on a single sweep of anchor values crossed with a single calibration. A sensitivity analysis over maker population size, funding thresholds, and leverage would strengthen the claim that the result is robust rather than an artifact of the chosen parameter corner.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract should include the qualification 'in this vehicle' or 'for the six channels implemented' when stating that a stressed market cannot transmit stress, to match the scope statement in §6.
  2. [§4.3] The paired per-seed test is reported only for a=0.25,0.10,0.00. For completeness, the same paired comparison should be reported for a=1.0,0.75,0.5, or a reason should be given why those anchor values are excluded.
  3. [§5.2] The single risk-linked market-maker row reports z≈1.7, p≈0.08 and describes the sign as 'sign-inconsistent.' The phrase is unclear; please specify the sign of the point estimate and explain why a positive but insignificant effect is not counted as evidence of transmission.
  4. [§3.3] The momentum window length (200 events) and the shock-burst parameters appear only in §4.1. A sentence in §3.1 or §3.3 defining these parameters would make the model specification easier to follow.
  5. [§5.1] The phrase 'the price reverts to the fundamental exactly' is too strong; the reported value is 1000.0 to the displayed precision. Please add the precision or say 'to within rounding.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The anchor-dial result is definitional by Eq. (2); the no-contagion null is not circular.

  1. self definitional [Eq. (2), §3.2; interpreted as causal confirmation in §5.3]
    "At a= 0 they quote around the current price, so a dislocation is met by fresh depth at the dislocated level and there is no force pulling the price back–the price then random-walks. The dial (2) thus turns the restoring force continuously on and off. ... Removing the anchor removes the resilience. This is the causal confirmation that the fundamental anchor–and not some incidental feature–is the stabilising restoring force."

    Eq. (2) defines r_t = a f_t + (1-a) p_t. The parameter a is the restoring force: at a=1 quotes anchor to f_t; at a=0 quotes anchor to p_t. The paper states in the definitional paragraph that a=0 removes any force pulling the price back. The later 'causal confirmation' reports that lowering a removes mean-reversion and destabilises the book. This is an ablation of the model's own rule, not an independently derived prediction: the loss of mean-reversion is a restatement of the input parameterization, so the headline positive claim reduces to the definition of the dial.

full rationale

The central positive finding is partially circular by construction: the anchor dial in Eq. (2) directly defines the restoring force, and the 'causal confirmation' in §5.3 is a knockout of that definitional feature. The emergent one-sidedness and leverage spiral at a=0 are nontrivial simulation outputs, which is why the circularity is partial (6) rather than total. The no-contagion null is not circular: it is a battery of empirical simulation comparisons with matched controls, and the paper explicitly concedes in §6 that a state-carrying balance-sheet channel was not built, which is a scope limitation rather than a reduction to inputs. The companion-paper self-citation [Novotny, 2026a] is used to calibrate the stressed corner, but §4.2 re-verifies the corner values in this coupled system, so it is not load-bearing enough to raise the score. Statistical concerns (failure-to-reject without equivalence bounds) are correctness risks, not circularity. External benchmarks and code availability support reproducibility, but they do not remove the definitional status of the anchor ablation. No other circularity patterns apply.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's free parameters are calibration choices rather than fits to external data; the central 'anchor' is a model rule, not an invented entity. The key axioms are the fixed-distance fundamental-anchored quoting and the reliance on the companion paper's stress corner. The missing balance-sheet channel is acknowledged by the authors and limits the generalizability of the null.

free parameters (7)
  • Stressed source corner (φ_A=0.9, κ_A=1.0) = φ=0.9, κ=1.0
    Chosen from the companion single-market study (Novotny 2026a) as the stress source, not fitted to external data. The receiver is held at φ_B=0.35 sub-critical.
  • Anchor sweep values a = {1.0, 0.75, 0.5, 0.25, 0.1, 0.0}
    Discrete grid of the anchor dial; not fitted. The qualitative result that stress rises as a→0 is the central causal claim.
  • Holder leverage Λ = {4, 6, 8}
    Leverage values crossed with the anchor sweep; chosen to demonstrate the spiral regime, not fitted to external data.
  • Market-maker/funding/holder calibration = unspecified in text
    Population sizes, exit thresholds, margin ratios, spread/size adjustments, inventory bounds are not reported in the paper. The paper notes 'the calibration that keeps the calm receiver stable is the same one that bounds the inventory a fire-sale can dump'—a genuine tension reported rather than tuned away.
  • Momentum window length = 200 events
    Window for the herders' momentum signal; chosen, not fitted.
  • Shock burst parameters = unspecified (leads to φ∅≈0.70–0.88)
    Windowed exogenous sell burst used for the direct-shock test; amplitude and duration not given.
  • Seed set = seeds 1000–1019
    Twenty seeds shared between stressed and calm conditions for paired tests; a design choice, not a fitted parameter.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Liquidity providers quote around a common, slowly varying fundamental value f_t at a fixed distance from f_t regardless of how far the price has strayed.
    Section 3.1: 'the book is continually replenished with two-sided depth centred on the fundamental' and 'fresh bids and asks reappear at f_t regardless of how far p_t has strayed.' This is the core structural assumption that produces the restoring force.
  • domain assumption The fundamental value f_t follows a slowly varying random walk common to all providers.
    Section 3.1: 'their reference is the fundamental value f_t, a slowly varying random walk common to all of them.' No drift or external forcing is modeled.
  • domain assumption Momentum herders act on a windowed price change with intensity φ and coupling κ, and the single-market crossover in φ∅ is valid as established in the companion paper.
    Section 3.1 and §4.2: the stress regime and the sign-scrambled null are taken from Novotny (2026a), not re-derived here. If the companion result were flawed, the source-market stress corner would be unjustified.
  • domain assumption The six channels (signal, arbitrage flow, risk-linked maker, funding-constrained population, fire-sale, leverage spiral) are a representative and exhaustive set of contagion mechanisms for this vehicle.
    Section 3.3 describes the hierarchy as 'monotone strengthening', but the paper itself notes in §6 that a balance-sheet-marking channel is missing. The null result is conditional on this set.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Herding and Liquidity in Order-Book Markets. II. Fundamental Anchoring and the Resilience of Liquidity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AIG4APBY

@misc{pith2026260716970,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Herding and Liquidity in Order-Book Markets. II. Fundamental Anchoring and the Resilience of Liquidity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AIG4APBY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16970}
}
read the original abstract

An order-book market whose liquidity provision is anchored to a fundamental value carries a restoring force: the price mean-reverts to value and the book refills after a shock. We show this restoring force is a robust intrinsic stabiliser and identify it causally-dialling the anchor down removes the mean-reversion, and a leverage-driven fire-sale then self-sustains. Separately, we ask whether a stressed market transmits its liquidity stress to a coupled calmer one, and find that it cannot: across six transmission channels of increasing strength-cross-market herding, arbitrage flow, and market-maker withdrawal up to a funding-constrained population fire-sale and a leverage spiral-the receiver's stress is independent of whether its neighbour is stressed, at every anchor strength. Market-maker withdrawal thins the receiving book but does not ignite it. Our order parameter throughout is the one-sidedness of the book-liquidity stress rather than a directional price crash-so a liquidity crisis here means the sustained one-sidedness a failing anchor produces. A liquidity crisis in this model is a failure of fundamental anchoring, not of market making.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16970 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The withdrawal mechanism is real. As the shared-risk weight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A funding-constrained maker population synchronously withdraws, but the receiver stays [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The anchor is the restoring force. After a windowed exogenous sell shock, a strongly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Intrinsic fragility, not contagion. At every anchor strength the receiver’s stress under a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Intrinsic stress rises as the anchor weakens. Under a stressed source, the receiver’s order [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [21]

    Max Bruche and John Chi-Fong Kuong

    URLhttps://www.financialresearch.gov/working-papers/2019/10/23/ cross-asset-market-order-flow-liquidity-and-price-discovery/. Max Bruche and John Chi-Fong Kuong. Dealer funding and market liquidity.Management Science,

    2019

  2. [24]

    Endogenous liquidity crises

    Antoine Fosset, Jean-Philippe Bouchaud, and Michael Benzaquen. Endogenous liquidity crises. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2020:063401,

    2020

  3. [26]

    doi: 10.1103/PhysRevE.85. 056108. Giovanni Cespa and Thierry Foucault. Illiquidity contagion and liquidity crashes.Review of Finan- cial Studies, 27(6):1615–1660,

    doi:10.1103/physreve.85

  4. [29]

    Andrei Kirilenko, Albert S

    URLhttps://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2010/marketevents-report.pdf. Andrei Kirilenko, Albert S. Kyle, Mehrdad Samadi, and Tugkan Tuzun. The flash crash: High- frequency trading in an electronic market.The Journal of Finance, 72(3):967–998,

    2010

  5. [31]

    Jan Novotny

    doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2018.3040. Jan Novotny. Coupled order-book abm: Cross-market liquidity transmission and fundamental an- choring (paper code).https://github.com/hanssmail/cross-market-liquidity-abm, 2026b. Code and data repository for this paper. 17

    arXiv 2018

  6. [1981]

    Marco Avellaneda and Sasha Stoikov

    doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(81)90020-9. Marco Avellaneda and Sasha Stoikov. High-frequency trading in a limit order book.Quantitative Finance, 8(3):217–224,

    doi:10.1016/0304-405x(81)90020-9

  7. [1985]

    David Easley, Marcos M

    doi: 10.1016/0304-405X(85)90044-3. David Easley, Marcos M. Lopez de Prado, and Maureen O’Hara. Flow toxicity and liquidity in a high-frequency world.The Review of Financial Studies, 25(5):1457–1493,

    doi:10.1016/0304-405x(85)90044-3

  8. [1988]

    doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1988.tb04594.x. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Find- ings regarding the market events of may 6, 2010: Report of the staffs of the cftc and sec to the joint advisory committee on emerging regulatory issues. Joint staff report, CFTC and SEC,

    arXiv 1988

Show all 31 references
  1. [1990]

    Jan Novotny

    doi: 10.1086/261703. Jan Novotny. Herding and liquidity in order-book markets. I. a robust liquidity-stress crossover and its reflexive mechanism. arXiv:2607.08907, 2026a. Markus K. Brunnermeier and Lasse Heje Pedersen. Predatory trading.The Journal of Finance, 60 (4):1825–1863,

    arXiv

  2. [1997]

    Denis Gromb and Dimitri Vayanos

    doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.1997.tb03807.x. Denis Gromb and Dimitri Vayanos. Equilibrium and welfare in markets with financially con- strained arbitrageurs.Journal of Financial Economics, 66(2-3):361–407,

    1997

  3. [1999]

    CarlChiarellaandGiuliaIori

    doi: 10.1038/17290. CarlChiarellaandGiuliaIori. Asimulationanalysisofthemicrostructureofdoubleauctionmarkets. Quantitative Finance, 2(5):346–353,

    doi

  4. [2001]

    Markus K

    doi: 10.1111/0022-1082.00373. Markus K. Brunnermeier and Lasse Heje Pedersen. Market liquidity and funding liquidity.The Review of Financial Studies, 22(6):2201–2238,

  5. [2002]

    J.BradfordDeLong, AndreiShleifer, LawrenceH.Summers, andRobertJ.Waldmann

    doi: 10.1088/1469-7688/2/5/303. J.BradfordDeLong, AndreiShleifer, LawrenceH.Summers, andRobertJ.Waldmann. Noisetrader risk in financial markets.Journal of Political Economy, 98(4):703–738,

    doi

  6. [2005]

    Andrei Shleifer and Robert W

    doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00781.x. Andrei Shleifer and Robert W. Vishny. The limits of arbitrage.The Journal of Finance, 52(1): 35–55,

    2005

  7. [2006]

    Marco Avellaneda and Jeong-Hyun Lee

    doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhj020. Marco Avellaneda and Jeong-Hyun Lee. Statistical arbitrage in the us equities market.Quantitative Finance, 10(7):761–782,

    doi

  8. [2008]

    Lawrence R

    doi: 10.1080/14697680701381228. Lawrence R. Glosten and Paul R. Milgrom. Bid, ask and transaction prices in a specialist market with heterogeneously informed traders.Journal of Financial Economics, 14(1):71–100,

    doi

  9. [2009]

    Rama Cont and Lakshithe Wagalath

    doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhn098. Rama Cont and Lakshithe Wagalath. Running for the exit: Distressed selling and endogenous correlation in financial markets.Mathematical Finance, 23(4):718–741,

    doi

  10. [2010]

    Thomas Ho and Hans R

    doi: 10.1080/14697680903124632. Thomas Ho and Hans R. Stoll. Optimal dealer pricing under transactions and return uncertainty. Journal of Financial Economics, 9(1):47–73,

    doi

  11. [2012]

    Xing Gao and Daniel Ladley

    doi: 10.1093/rfs/ hhs053. Xing Gao and Daniel Ladley. Statistical arbitrage and risk contagion.Journal of Economic Dy- namics and Control, 144:104528,

    doi

  12. [2013]

    1467-9965.2011.00510.x

    doi: 10.1111/j. 1467-9965.2011.00510.x. 14 Thomas Lux and Michele Marchesi. Scaling and criticality in a stochastic multi-agent model of a financial market.Nature, 397(6719):498–500,

    2011

  13. [2014]

    16 SanfordJ.GrossmanandMertonH.Miller

    doi: 10.1093/rfs/hhu016. 16 SanfordJ.GrossmanandMertonH.Miller. Liquidityandmarketstructure.The Journal of Finance, 43(3):617–633,

    doi

  14. [2015]

    Geir-Are Kårvik, Joseph Noss, Jack Worlidge, and Daniel Beale

    URLhttps://www.financialresearch.gov/working-papers/2015/09/16/ an-agent-based-model-for-crisis-liquidity-dynamics/. Geir-Are Kårvik, Joseph Noss, Jack Worlidge, and Daniel Beale. The deeds of speed: an agent-based model of market liquidity and flash episodes. Staff Working Pa...

    2015

  15. [2016]

    Vladimir Filimonov and Didier Sornette

    doi: 10.1088/1742-5468/aa53f7. Vladimir Filimonov and Didier Sornette. Quantifying reflexivity in financial markets: Towards a prediction of flash crashes.Physical Review E, 85:056108,

    doi

  16. [2017]

    Albert J

    doi: 10.1111/jofi.12498. Albert J. Menkveld and Bart Zhou Yueshen. The flash crash: A cautionary tale about highly fragmentedmarkets.Management Science, 65(10):4470–4488,

    doi

  17. [2018]

    Andras Borsos, Adrian Carro, Aldo Glielmo, Marc Hinterschweiger, Jagoda Kaszowska- Mojsa, and Arzu Uluc

    URLhttps://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2018/ the-deeds-of-speed-an-agent-based-model-of-market-liquidity-and-flash-episodes. Andras Borsos, Adrian Carro, Aldo Glielmo, Marc Hinterschweiger, Jagoda Kaszowska- Mojsa, and Arzu Uluc. Agent-based modeling at central banks...

    2018

  18. [2019]

    15 Richard Bookstaber and Mark Paddrik

    doi: 10.1016/j.jedc.2018.12.008. 15 Richard Bookstaber and Mark Paddrik. An agent-based model for crisis liquidity dy- namics. Working Paper 15-18, Office of Financial Research, U.S. Department of the Treasury,

    2018 doi

  19. [2020]

    finmar.2020.100559

    doi: 10.1016/j. finmar.2020.100559. Robert Garrison, Pankaj K. Jain, and Mark Paddrik. Cross-asset market order flow, liquidity, and price discovery. Working Paper 19-04, Office of Financial Research, U.S. Department of the Treasury,

    2020

  20. [2022]

    Alberto Ciacci, Takumi Sueshige, Hideki Takayasu, Kim Christensen, and Misako Takayasu

    doi: 10.1016/j.jedc.2022.104528. Alberto Ciacci, Takumi Sueshige, Hideki Takayasu, Kim Christensen, and Misako Takayasu. The microscopic relationships between triangular arbitrage and cross-currency correlations in a simple agent based model of foreign exchange markets.PLOS ON...

    2022

  21. [2024]

    Jean-Philippe Bouchaud

    doi: 10.18564/jasss.5403. Jean-Philippe Bouchaud. Navigating through economic complexity: Phase diagrams & parameter sloppiness. arXiv:2412.11259,

    arXiv

  22. [2025]

    Perukrishnen Vytelingum, Rory Baggott, Namid Stillman, Jianfei Zhang, Dingqiu Zhu, Tao Chen, and Justin Lyon

    URLhttps://www.bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/2025/ agent-based-modeling-at-central-banks-recent-developments-and-new-challenges. Perukrishnen Vytelingum, Rory Baggott, Namid Stillman, Jianfei Zhang, Dingqiu Zhu, Tao Chen, and Justin Lyon. Agent-based liquidity risk modelli...

    2025 arXiv

  23. [2026]

    Kang Gao, Perukrishnen Vytelingum, Stephen Weston, Wayne Luk, and Ce Guo

    doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2022.02278. Kang Gao, Perukrishnen Vytelingum, Stephen Weston, Wayne Luk, and Ce Guo. High-frequency fi- nancial market simulation and flash crash scenarios analysis: An agent-based modelling approach. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 27(2):8,

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.