Imagine four poker players at a table, each using a different strategy app on their phone. Nobody is talking. Nobody is coordinating. But two of the apps converge on the same soft-play pattern — checking instead of betting — while one app bets wildly and one bets above the pot every time. The "collusion" isn't in the communication channel. It's baked into the decision algorithm itself. That's the structural mechanism this paper isolates: when heterogeneous LLMs set prices in a repeated oligopoly game, whether the market colludes depends almost entirely on which model is in the room. The committed claim: algorithmic collusion does not require homogeneous algorithms. Four different LLMs (Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek, GPT) from four different providers, each at its cheapest API tier, were placed in a four-firm logit Bertrand pricing market — the standard workhorse of oligopoly theory. Across 11 composition cells, 20 runs per cell, and 200 periods per run, the paper maps which models collude, which disrupt, and crucially, who captures the rent when they mix. Claude and Gemini homogeneous markets reached 72–79% of monopoly rent. DeepSeek managed 24%. GPT achieved zero — but not because it competed hard. GPT prices drifted above monopoly level, destroying surplus rather than sharing it. The ladder result is what makes this paper interesting rather than merely confirmatory. Prior algorithmic collusion work (Calvano et al. 2020, Assad et al. 2024) demonstrated that identical Q-learning or identical pricing algorithms converge on supra-competitive prices. This paper's contribution is the heterogeneous case: what happens when the market is mixed. The answer is not what the naive extrapolation would predict. Mixing does not dilute collusion linearly. Markets containing Gemini — which opens at the highest price and settles highest — were more collusive than the homogeneous markets they were built from. Markets containing Claude, which opens lower and follows rivals down, were less collusive. Only the fully mixed four-model market was significantly less collusive than the average homogeneous one. The architecture is deliberately minimal: raw LLM inference at the cheapest tier, no fine-tuning, no reinforcement learning, no memory beyond what the prompt provides. Each model receives a text prompt describing the competitive environment and recent price history, then outputs a price. This is critical because it means the collusive behavior emerges from the base model's disposition — its training data, RLHF, or constitutional tuning — not from any optimization loop designed for pricing. The logit demand model maps prices to market shares and profits in a standard way. The design space is the composition: which models occupy which of the four firm slots. Integrity has strengths and gaps. The 11-cell design covering every homogeneous, two-by-two, and fully mixed composition is thorough for a simulation study. Twenty runs per cell with 200 periods each provides reasonable statistical power. The benchmark — Nash-Bertrand equilibrium and monopoly price as the two poles — is the correct one for oligopoly theory. However, this is entirely the authors' own simulation. No code release is mentioned. The logit demand model, while standard, is chosen, not discovered. The cheapest API tier introduces a confound: model behavior at the cheapest tier may differ from behavior at higher tiers, and API versioning means these results are a snapshot of a moving target. The sharpest finding is the rent-distribution inversion. Inside mixed markets, rent is shared in a transitive order: DeepSeek > Claude > Gemini > GPT. This exactly inverts the price-anchor ranking (Gemini sets highest prices, GPT highest/most erratic). The model that raises the price collects the least rent — a clean confirmation of the price-leadership model from classical IO theory, now demonstrated in an LLM population. The leader provides a public good (higher price umbrella) that followers free-ride on by slightly undercutting. The obvious next experiment is scaling to more than four firms, introducing memory or fine-tuning, and — most importantly — testing on real marketplace data rather than a parameterized logit demand model. The authors almost certainly stopped at four firms and 200 periods because of API cost constraints at scale. The deeper successor question is whether model providers, knowing their models' collusive dispositions, face regulatory or liability exposure — a question this paper frames but cannot answer.
