cs.AIAug 24, 2026
SaveDo LLMs Understand Limit Order Book Dynamics?
Organizations: Columbia Business School
Abstract
A large language model (LLM) trained on synthetic limit order book (LOB) data achieves near perfect scores in generating valid sequences of LOB events. However, the LLM's implicit world model fails to learn the state of the LOB. This deficiency leads to biased estimates and spurious predictability in using the LLM to forecast future LOB events. Our analysis uses novel tests of an LLM's world model, extending prior work from deterministic settings to the stochastic dynamics needed for the LOB.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Representation of a limit order book
| Model | Valid | SP | Extra | Compress. |
| Traversal | Rate | Steps | Score | |
| SP | 99.4% | 99.4% (100%) | 0.0 (0.0) | 61.1% |
| RW-S | 98.5% | 90.6% (10.4%) | 0.1 (16.3) | 42.0% |
| RW-L | 95.5% | 83.7% (4.2%) | 0.3 (43.8) | 48.0% |
| Baseline | 0.7% | 0.7% (4.2%) | 0.0 (43.8) | 99.9% |
Table 1: Diagnostic results
| Step | Event | Resulting State |
| 0 | Start | |
| 1 | ask_p3_2 | |
| 2 | bid_p2_1 | |
| 3 | ask_p2_1 | |
| 4 | w_ask_p1_2 | |
| 5 | ask_p3_1 |
Table 2: Prefix used in kernel-level TV
| Action Token | Next State | True Prob. | LLM’s Prob. |
| w_ask_p1_2 | 0.050 | 0.245 | |
| w_ask_p1_1 | 0.050 | 0.241 | |
| ask_p2_2 | 0.050 | 0.190 | |
| ask_p1_1 | 0.050 | 0.132 | |
| ask_p1_2 | 0.050 | 0.106 |
Table 3: Next-event probabilities in kernel-level TV
Figure 2: Illustration of history- and kernel-level TV
| Model | TV Type | |||
| SP | Kernel-level | 0.46 | 0.72 | 0.84 |
| History-level | 0.33 | 0.51 | 0.59 | |
| RW-S | Kernel-level | 0.11 | 0.19 | 0.28 |
| History-level | 0.07 | 0.14 | 0.23 | |
| RW-L | Kernel-level | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.21 |
| History-level | 0.06 | 0.11 | 0.16 |
Table 4: Multi-step forecast TV distances
| Event Token | Next State | ||
| bid_p2_2 | 0.278 | 0.002 | |
| ask_p3_2 | 0.056 | 0.313 | |
| m_ask_2 | 0.047 | 0.233 | |
| w_bid_p3_2 | 0.028 | 0.199 | |
| ask_p2_2 | 0.053 | 0.208 | |
| ask_p2_1 | 0.128 | 0.002 |
Table 5: Next-event probabilities in history-level TV
Figure 3: Regression results for RW-S
Figure 4: Regression results for RW-L
| LOB Setting | # of States | Model | Valid Traversal | SP Rate | Compress. Score | Kernel-level TV | History-level TV | ||||
| 8281 | SP | 99.4% | 99.4% (100%) | 47.0% | 0.64 | 0.86 | 0.93 | 0.34 | 0.45 | 0.57 | |
| RW-S | 97.8% | 88.6% (11.5%) | 29.0% | 0.14 | 0.22 | 0.35 | 0.10 | 0.13 | 0.26 | ||
| RW-L | 94.1% | 81.2% (4.0%) | 34.0% | 0.13 | 0.19 | 0.32 | 0.08 | 0.14 | 0.18 | ||
| Baseline | 0.3% | 0.3% (4.0%) | 99.8% | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 0.01 | ||
| 41553 | SP | 97.1% | 96.8% (100%) | 53.6% | 0.61 | 0.79 | 0.92 | 0.39 | 0.56 | 0.62 | |
Table 6: Diagnostic and multi-step forecast results for larger LOB settings
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Prefix | Start State | Event Sequence |
| ask_p1_2 , w_bid_p3_1 , ask_p2_2 , ask_p1_1 , bid_p3_2 , bid_p2_1 , m_ask_1 , bid_p3_1 , w_bid_p3_2 , ask_p2_1 , ask_p3_2 , bid_p1_1 , bid_p3_2 , m_ask_1 , m_bid_2 , m_bid_1 , m_bid_2 , bid_p1_1 , ask_p1_2 , bid_p3_2 | ||
| bid_p3_2 , bid_p2_1 , bid_p2_2 , m_bid_2 , ask_p1_1 , w_bid_p3_1 , w_bid_p3_1 , ask_p1_2 , w_bid_p3_2 , ask_p3_1 , m_ask_2 , bid_p3_1 , ask_p3_1 , w_ask_p1_1 , ask_p2_2 , ask_p1_1 , m_ask_1 , ask_p1_1 , m_bid_2 , bid_p3_2 |
Table 7: Two prefixes in history-level TV