What does not knowing the horizon cost a market maker?
research/anytime-liquidity
LMSR with time-varying liquidity as anytime Hedge: b_t = c*√t costs exactly √2 over the horizon-aware bound, doubling is 1.70× worse, and self-tuning liquidity makes the subsidy equal the accumulated mixability gap (1.3 vs 102 on easy data).
What it found
An LMSR with liquidity b routes like Hedge with rate 1/b, but the tuned b needs the horizon T. A bt = c√t schedule with c* = 1/(2√ln N) pays exactly √2 over the horizon-aware bound (1.36 rising to 1.41 measured); the doubling trick is 1.70× worse than the continuous schedule against a price-reactive adversary; and self-tuning liquidity bt = Δt−1/ln N makes the subsidy equal the accumulated mixability gap (1.3 against 102 on easy data) with regret at most 2Δ. Regret analysis only. Stylised.
A figure from its own output
Paper, code and results
More in Prediction-market design
- The subsidy cost of privacy in prediction marketsDifferentially private LMSR via the binary-tree mechanism: path-wise loss bound, and the accuracy/subsidy cost of privacy.
- Who pays for the information in a manipulated market?Manipulating an LMSR verification market: manipulator loss
b·KL(q‖τ)equals the extra informed rent, and manipulation raises accuracy only in a liquidity band (thin: costs1−2q; deep: neutral). - What does a slippage limit give away in a prediction market?Sandwiching an LMSR verification market: attacker profit is exactly the victim's slippage tolerance times its fair cost, needs capital
≈ εb/(1−p), dies to a fee≈ v(1−p)/(2b); pro-rata batching keeps 99% of the extraction, random ordering cuts it 3×. - Who trades decides how liquid a verification market should beGlosten–Milgrom vs LMSR for a verification market: informed share fixes
b* = 1/(2 atanh m)(verified to 2e-16), peak misspecification regret is scale-free and overconfidentbcosts 1.5–2.4× more, LMSR subsidy→ b* ln 2is the spread GM charges. - What does a fee do to a prediction market’s price?Proportional fees on an LMSR verification market: exact no-trade band
[q/(1+f),(q+f)/(1+f)], price lagq/(1+f), dead-market clifff ≥ 2a−1(threshold2 atanh fat ½), exact fee revenuef·b·ln((1−p₀)/(1−p_T)), and a break-even fee that costs +38% Brier error. - What is a seat in a prediction market worth?Sequential LMSR seat rents are conditional mutual information: they telescope to the maker's expected loss (≤
b ln 2), fall with position at the Chernoff rate, order only redistributes a fixed total, and entry costs make error fall only ~1/bin the subsidy.
All 9 Prediction-market design projects →
Other research topics
Proper scoring & elicitation28Effort & peer prediction9Verification games & slashing19Detection & tolerances14Markets as routers13Prediction-market design9Paying contributors8Decentralised training systems23Digital twins & sim-to-real164LLM chip design loops40Robot manufacturing loops53Ambient AI assistant46Self-replicating manufacturing34Simulation-first design64Engineered clothing45Task-specific AI accelerators40Algorithmic chip-design loops42Open-source purpose-built robots44The software-engineering loop43Adversarial human imitation41Open-source residential construction41Autonomous multi-angle capture34Sensing, imaging and 3D31Energy supply and dense energy storage39Robot societies among people31Agentic co-design of low-cost robots27Laundry-hanging robots25Machine learning on qualitative data23Robots on the building site27Civilizations & group psychology1History & human sciences1
Produced with AI assistance (Claude). Results are from the code in this repository and are simulated or stylised unless the abstract says otherwise; nothing here implies affiliation with or endorsement by any lab, researcher or company cited. MIT licensed.