Deciphering algorithmic collusion: Insights from bandit algorithms and implications for antitrust enforcement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores algorithmic collusion from both legal and economic perspectives, underscoring the increasing influence of algorithms in firms’ market decisions and their potential to facilitate anti-competitive behaviour. By employing bandit algorithms as a model—typically used in uncertain decision-making scenarios—we shed light on the mechanisms of implicit collusion that occur without explicit communication. Legally, the primary challenge lies in detecting and categorizing possible algorithmic signals, particularly when they function as unilateral communications. Economically, the task of distinguishing between rational pricing strategies and collusive patterns becomes increasingly complex in the context of algorithm-driven decisions. The paper stresses the need for competition authorities to identify atypical market behaviours. Striking a balance between algorithmic transparency and the prevention of collusion is critical. While regulatory measures could mitigate collusive risks, they might also impede the development of algorithmic technologies. As this form of collusion gains prominence in competition law and economics discussions, understanding it through models like bandit algorithms becomes essential, especially since these algorithms have the potential to converge more rapidly toward supra-competitive prices equilibria.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".