Liquidity-Based Audit of Algorithmic Trading Strategies

In algorithmic markets, predictive models become part of the data-generating process they aim to forecast. Once their outputs are converted into trades, allocations, execution schedules, or risk controls, they change the future data on which they are evaluated. I introduce algometrics, a framework for time series whose evolution depends on the predictive algorithms forecasting them. The framework distinguishes historical risk, measured under passive forecasting, from deployment risk, measured when forecasts drive actions. I prove three results. First, deployment risk is not identifiable from passive historical data alone: even in a one-step linear feedback model, infinitely many algorithm-mediated environments induce the same historical law while implying different deployment risks for the same forecaster. Second, historical model rankings can invert under crowding, so a predictor with lower passive error can have higher deployment error once similar algorithms are adopted. Third, randomized or instrumented actions identify short-horizon linear feedback, and I derive a finite-sample bound for deployment-risk estimation. These results suggest that time-series benchmarks in algorithmic markets should report feedback sensitivity alongside predictive accuracy.

We study the problem of auditing a black-box algorithmic decision-maker from observable inputs and outputs alone. Our main result is an exact decomposition: under precisely characterized conditions, the cumulative \emph{regret} of a dynamic policy equals the sum of per-period covariances between the cost vector and the policy's decision. This extends the single-period identity of Aldridge~(2026) to the full multi-period setting of stochastic dynamic programming. We prove the identity holds exactly under i.i.d. costs and mean-unbiased Markov policies, derive closed-form bias corrections for non-stationary and time-varying cases, and establish the discounted-horizon analog. A Bellman recursion for the covariance regret functional connects the result to standard reinforcement learning algorithms; for rolling-window policies, the estimation-error bias is $O(d/w)$. The decomposition has direct implications for algorithmic auditing in strategic environments: in platform mechanism design, it provides a welfare-based audit metric without access to the agent's private type; in repeated games, covariance reduction is a sufficient condition for policy improvement; in procurement and ad auctions, the bias correction quantifies welfare loss from strategic misreporting. The associated trajectory estimator is consistent, asymptotically normal with HAC variance, and computable in $O(T \cdot nd)$ time. This makes the proposed approach a tractable, model-free audit tool for platform mechanisms, algorithmic portfolio strategies, and any sequential decision system subject to external performance review.

Empirical work on algorithmic collusion asks one question of the data: are prices supracompetitive? We show this can be answered "no" by a conspiracy that is nonetheless profitable. Consider bidding agents that couple only through the joint distribution of their unexplained bid components, leaving every agent's own bid law exactly at the competitive law. Any test whose input is a single agent's price or bid history then has power exactly equal to its false-positive rate, for every coupling strength up to comonotonicity. The published detection methodology is therefore blind to this conduct by construction rather than underpowered, and no sample size repairs it. Three empirical results follow. First, the mechanism appears in real language-model agents: twenty models from nineteen independent developers, three deployment prompts each, show residual correlation of $+0.053$ between two deployments of one model against $+0.0001$ across models, with a 95% interval clustered by developer of $[0.030, 0.078]$, under an auditor that sees every order feature and is fitted out of sample. Second, the coupling falls monotonically as sampling temperature rises ($p=0.002$), turning a deployment parameter into a candidate mitigation. Third, on 24 days of Ethereum block-building auction data covering 77,684 bids from 39 bidders, the honest population of bidder pairs is itself so dependent that a screen held at a 5% false-positive rate must sit above a floor of $+0.50$ to $+0.81$, which is 20 to 32 times the family-wise sampling threshold and does not fall as the audit window grows. Since lawful multi-identity operation and conspiracy are behaviourally indistinguishable here, the tractable regulatory target is not detection but counting: resolving 40 bidding identities into 23 operators raises the Herfindahl index by 247.5%, and adding behavioural clusters from public bid streams reaches 324.5%.