Abstract:This paper offers a novel perspective on the implications of increasingly autonomous and “black box” algorithms, within the ramification of algorithmic trading, for the integrity of capital markets. Artificial intelligence (AI) and particularly its subfield of machine learning (ML) methods have gained immense popularity among the great public and achieved tremendous success in many real-life applications by leading to vast efficiency gains. In the financial trading domain, ML can augment human capabilities in both price prediction, dynamic portfolio optimization, and other financial decision-making tasks. However, thanks to constant progress in the ML technology, the prospect of increasingly capable and autonomous agents to delegate operational tasks and even decision-making is now beyond mere imagination, thus opening up the possibility for approximating (truly) autonomous trading agents anytime soon.Given these spectacular developments, this paper argues that such autonomous algorithmic traders may involve significant risks to market integrity, independent from their human experts, thanks to self-learning capabilities offered by state-of-the-art and innovative ML methods. Using the proprietary trading industry as a case study, we explore emerging threats to the application of established market abuse laws in the event of algorithmic market abuse, by taking an interdisciplinary stance between financial regulation, law & economics, and computational finance. Specifically, our analysis focuses on two emerging market abuse risks by autonomous algorithms: market manipulation and “tacit” collusion. We explore their likelihood to arise on global capital markets and evaluate related social harm as forms of market failures.With these new risks in mind, this paper questions the adequacy of existing regulatory frameworks and enforcement mechanisms, as well as current legal rules on the governance of algorithmic trading, to cope with increasingly autonomous and ubiquitous algorithmic trading systems. It shows how the “black box” nature of specific ML-powered algorithmic trading strategies can subvert existing market abuse laws, which are based upon traditional liability concepts and tests (such as “intent” and “causation”). In concluding, by addressing the shortcomings of the present legal framework, we develop a number of guiding principles to assist legal and policy reform in the spirit of promoting and safeguarding market integrity and safety.

Why black box machine learning should be avoided for high-stakes decisions, in brief

Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead

"How do I fool you?": Manipulating User Trust via Misleading Black Box Explanations

Black Box Prediction Methods in Sports Medicine Deserve a Red Card for Reckless Practice: A Change of Tactics is Needed to Advance Athlete Care

Optimized Scoring Systems: Toward Trust in Machine Learning for Healthcare and Criminal Justice

Removing biased data to improve fairness and accuracy

Wrong side of the tracks: Big Data and Protected Categories

Transparency and the Black Box Problem: Why We Do Not Trust AI

When not to use machine learning: A perspective on potential and limitations

Is it ethical to avoid error analysis?

A Study on Trust in Black Box Models and Post-hoc Explanations

Open the Black Box Data-Driven Explanation of Black Box Decision Systems

Engineering Safety in Machine Learning

Transferring Black-Box Decision Making to a White-Box Model

Machine Learning, Market Manipulation and Collusion on Capital Markets: Why the 'Black Box' matters

Human Reliance on Machine Learning Models When Performance Feedback is Limited: Heuristics and Risks

Critical Empirical Study on Black-box Explanations in AI

Interpretable algorithmic forensics

A Blackbox Model Is All You Need to Breach Privacy: Smart Grid Forecasting Models as a Use Case

Algorithms for interpretable machine learning

On Predicting Recidivism: Epistemic Risk, Tradeoffs, and Values in Machine Learning