economic modeling teams

Abstract: Large language model (LLM) pricing agents may respond to how market data is presented, even when its numerical values remain unchanged. We introduce market signal injection (MSI), an attack that manipulates numerical formatting, competitor ordering, or qualitative market commentary without issuing explicit instructions. We evaluate nine open-weight models in simulated Bertrand duopoly and triopoly markets and three proprietary models in duopoly markets. Sentiment-based attacks produce the largest behavioral shifts, which propagate to other firms and alter profits and consumer surplus. Susceptibility varies across model families, and larger models are not consistently more robust. Matched neutral-text controls and a rule-based agent support a framing-based account of these shifts under the fixed demand parameters of our simulation. Episode-held-out probes distinguish baseline from attacked activations in all eleven re-evaluated model--condition pairs: linear AUC is 1.00 and MLP AUC ranges from 0.93 to 0.99. This separability does not by itself identify harmful pricing decisions. Input canonicalization removes the tested sentiment attacks, while decision boundary anchoring, which combines prompt constraints with output projection, provides partial mitigation under the tested adaptive attacks. These results identify data presentation as an attack surface for LLM pricing agents and motivate defenses that account for interactions among agents.

Abstract: Causal effect estimation asks how an outcome would change under an intervention, and medicine, economics, and public policy all treat it as a foundational task. Prior-data fitted networks (PFNs) amortize the task: a model trained on large numbers of programmatically generated synthetic causal tasks reads a new problem's observational data into context and returns an interventional-effect estimate in a single forward pass. The capability of such models is largely determined by the synthetic training prior, which is currently designed by hand, a bottleneck acknowledged by both Do-PFN and CausalPFN. Large language models (LLMs) can now ``draw'' plausible causal graphs for a given domain, suggesting that LLM-distilled graphs could serve as prior material. Whether injecting such graphs helps at all, where any gain comes from, and when injection helps. Practice has so far relied on manual trial and error. We propose a \emph{closed-loop prior selection framework} that casts prior injection as a budget-constrained optimization over a candidate prior pool. Candidates undergo cheap post-training and are scored by a composite metric dominated by real-domain generalization; the winner then receives full training and paired statistical validation. On a 7.34M-parameter Do-PFN, the framework's winner attains a formally significant $2.75\times$ gain on the primary evaluation domain, and its error falls below that of the uninjected official base. Generalization on an adjacent monitoring domain improves significantly, and no monitored capability degrades. Mechanism experiments show that the gain depends on the semantic content of the distilled graph rather than its structural diversity alone does not produce it (directional evidence). With this framework and this regularity in hand, the use of LLM causal priors stops being manual trial and error and becomes an empirically verifiable selection problem.