From Product Search to Preference Articulation: The Economics of Agentic Commerce

Fasheng Xu; Kaiwen Luo; Lingxiu Dong

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 41 references

From Product Search to Preference Articulation: The Economics of Agentic Commerce

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Manual search stops at a finite complexity cutoff; agentic search with consumer refinement does not, keeping mismatch below the no-search level and platform revenue positive.

desk verdict Clean, honest theory with a marquee no-collapse result that depends on an infinite-catalog limit and needs a serious caveat before the policy narrative is used. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08395 v1 pith:YULW2JCS submitted 2026-08-09 econ.TH cs.AIcs.GT

Lingxiu Dong , Kaiwen Luo , Fasheng Xu This is my paper · ORCID

classification econ.THcs.AIcs.GT MSC 91B4291B26

keywords agenticcommercesearchpreferencecomplexityarticulationAIfidelityconsumercollapseadoptionlag

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks what happens to product search when consumers delegate discovery to AI agents that represent preferences noisily. It claims that manual browsing fails catastrophically as the number of hard-to-articulate satisfaction dimensions grows: at a finite complexity cutoff, consumers stop inspecting, expected mismatch returns to the no-search benchmark, and platform revenue is zero. Agentic search with consumer-chosen refinement depth avoids this finite collapse, provided interaction friction is low enough: complexity makes refinement more valuable, so mismatch stays below the no-search level and revenue stays positive at every finite complexity. The paper also finds an adoption lag, in which agentic search is revenue-superior for the platform before consumers voluntarily choose it, and an inverted fidelity allocation in which attention-rich consumers receive lower AI fidelity because they can compensate with extra refinement. The economic bottleneck shifts from product inspection to preference articulation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the assumption that refinement acts as a radial rescaling, so interaction depth shrinks the agent's effective search space from the unit ball to a ball of smaller radius while representation noise scales down proportionally, paired with the linear scale invariance that expected mismatch equals the radius times an intrinsic mismatch term. That intrinsic term is the dense-catalog expected true distance when the agent ranks noisy readings of preferences and products, given by a ratio of truncated-Gaussian integrals and strictly increasing in both complexity and noise. The factorization turns the consumer's problem into a one-dimensional stopping rule: refine until the marginal contraction times the intrinsic mismatch equals interaction friction, or the attention budget binds. This structure is what makes greater complexity raise the value of refinement and prevents a finite collapse.

What would settle it

Observe agentic-search mismatch in categories across the complexity spectrum: under the paper's central claim, when interaction is cheap enough expected mismatch must stay strictly below the random-pick benchmark at every finite complexity level even as consumers refine, so finding any finite complexity at which mismatch reaches the no-search level while consumers are still actively refining would falsify the no-collapse result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is a contrast between two search technologies. Under manual search, sampled products are evaluated perfectly but the chance of a close draw falls exponentially with dimensionality, so optimal inspection ends at a finite complexity cutoff; beyond it the consumer searches not at all and outcomes equal no-search. Under agentic search, the consumer chooses interaction depth to shrink the effective search radius, and by linear scale invariance expected mismatch is the radius multiplied by the intrinsic dense-catalog mismatch. Because that intrinsic mismatch rises with complexity, so does the marginal value of refinement; once refinement is worthwhile it stays worthwhile, refinement depth rises weakly with complexity, and in the low-friction case mismatch converges to an interior level below one rather than to the no-search benchmark. Three consequences follow: complexity attenuation without collapse, an adoption lag between the platform's revenue threshold and the consumer's adoption threshold when manual inspection is cheap, and a weakly inverted fidelity allocation across attention segments that becomes strict under intermediate accuracy cost.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that each unit of interaction contracts the effective search space by a smooth multiplicative factor around the consumer's ideal, with representation noise contracting in proportion; if actual dialogue instead only cleans up noise without narrowing the product set, the complexity-attenuation and fidelity results need not survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In high-complexity categories with costly manual evaluation, agentic search can sustain transactions after manual browsing has ceased, so platform revenue remains positive where manual search would be zero.
Platforms cannot infer voluntary adoption from conversion-based revenue superiority: over the adoption lag, consumers rationally continue manual search even though agentic search would raise platform revenue.
When interaction friction is high, the agentic advantage erodes: consumers never refine, and as complexity grows mismatch approaches the no-search level and revenue approaches zero.
Conditional on agentic participation, attention-rich consumers may receive lower fidelity than attention-constrained ones while remaining weakly more profitable to serve, so accuracy should be invested where consumer effort cannot substitute for it.
Consumer refinement effort weakly increases with complexity but never fully offsets the burden: mismatch weakly rises and revenue weakly falls with complexity even under agentic search.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension: across real product categories, agentic-search adoption should rise with preference complexity while manual inspection effort should eventually cease, so adoption should concentrate in complex categories with costly per-product evaluation.
The inverted fidelity result suggests an unexplored incentive design: charging attention-rich consumers for higher fidelity could exploit the substitution between consumer effort and platform accuracy, a screening problem the paper leaves open.
If real dialogue mainly reduces representation noise rather than shrinking the product space, the scale-invariance mechanism breaks; measuring whether consideration-set contraction or noise reduction dominates in chat logs would locate where the theory applies.
Hybrid search, in which an agent narrows a shortlist and the consumer inspects it, should combine both advantages; the paper studies pure regimes as benchmarks, so its results bound what hybrid designs build on.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear Colleague,

Quick take: this is a careful, well-written theory paper with complete proofs, but the marquee result—agentic search avoids complexity collapse—turns on the dense-catalog limit n→∞. If the catalog is finite, that result does not survive.

What's new: the paper makes refinement depth a consumer choice and puts preference elicitation on the consumer side, not the platform. That yields three genuinely new findings: complexity attenuation without collapse, an adoption lag between what platform revenue wants and what consumers voluntarily choose, and an inverted fidelity allocation where attention-rich consumers get lower fidelity. The math is clean. Lemma 2 gives closed-form manual mismatch; Theorem EC.1 gives a truncated-Gaussian representation of D_k(σ). The main theorems have full proofs in the appendix, and the comparative statics are derived from primitives, not fitted to data. Credit where due: this is a solid piece of economic theory.

The soft spots. First, the no-collapse result depends on the agent being able to draw fresh products from the shrunken ball B_k(R(T)) after each refinement. That is an infinite-catalog assumption. With a finite catalog of N products, refinement only narrows the set of already-existing products; the expected number inside the shrunken ball is N R(T)^k, which vanishes as k grows. Even with zero representation noise, the best product available tends to distance 1 and revenue to 0. So the claimed attenuation is not a property of agentic search per se, but of the dense-catalog limit. The paper labels this a benchmark and is transparent about it, but the headline result is stated without that caveat, and the qualitative narrative is weaker if the effect depends on an infinitely dense catalog.

Second, Assumption 1's radial rescaling with log-convex R(T) drives the monotone comparative statics. The reader flagged this; I agree it's a real limitation, but it's the kind of reduced form that's standard in a first theory piece. The dense-catalog issue is more structural.

A finite-catalog robustness check would still give complexity attenuation for moderate k if N is large, but it would vanish at some complexity threshold. That seems like an important thing for the authors to state, and it changes the policy implications.

Who this is for: people working on the economics of AI agents and search. It's a legitimate contribution to that emerging literature, and it deserves a serious referee. I'd recommend sending it to review, but with a request that the authors add an explicit discussion of finite-catalog robustness and soften the "no collapse" claim.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies AI-mediated product search in a k-dimensional spatial model. Consumers choose between manual search, which inspects a limited number of products at perfect fidelity, and agentic search, which screens a dense catalog through noisy representations and lets consumers choose a refinement depth T. Preference complexity k is the number of hard-to-articulate satisfaction dimensions. The main findings are: (i) manual search collapses at a finite complexity threshold, whereas agentic search displays complexity attenuation without collapse (Theorem 2); (ii) platforms and consumers can rank the regimes differently, producing an adoption lag when manual inspection is cheap (Theorem 3); and (iii) conditional on agentic participation, platforms may assign lower fidelity to attention-rich consumers (Propositions 3 and 4). All formal results are proved in Appendix A, with exact closed forms for the manual-search and dense-catalog agentic-search mismatch.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper makes a useful contribution to the emerging economics of agentic commerce. It endogenizes consumer-controlled preference refinement, derives comparative statics from primitive assumptions rather than fitted parameters, and produces testable predictions: refinement depth increases with complexity, agentic revenue remains positive in complex categories, adoption lags arise for cheap manual inspection, and fidelity allocation is inverted by attention budget. The appendix contains complete, self-contained proofs, including exact closed forms in Lemma 2 and Theorem EC.1, which is a strength. The main caveat is that the headline no-collapse result is proven in a dense-catalog limit and depends on a specific radial-contraction assumption, so the scope of the central claim needs to be made precise.

major comments (2)

[§3.3, Theorem 2(c)] The no-collapse result is an artifact of the dense-catalog limit. The model defines agentic mismatch in the limit n→∞; for any fixed finite catalog of N products, the expected number of products in the contracted ball B_k(R(T)) is N R(T)^k, which vanishes as k→∞ for any R(T)<1, and the closest of N points in the unit ball has distance tending to 1 in probability as k→∞. Consequently, with a finite catalog, expected mismatch under agentic search tends to 1 and platform revenue tends to 0 even with optimal refinement. This directly contradicts the statement in Theorem 2(c) and the abstract that agentic search 'never' returns to the no-search outcome. The paper does label the dense-catalog case a benchmark, but the central narrative in Sections 1 and 8 presents the absence of collapse as a property of agentic search. I ask the authors to either extend the model to finite N (for example, by characterizing the minimal catalog size needed to preserve attenuation) or to explicitly restate Theorems 1 and 2 and the headline claims as dense-catalog limit results with a discussion of the finite-N regime.
[§3.4, Theorem EC.1] The no-collapse conclusion is tied to the multiplicative radial-contraction form of Assumption 1. By Theorem EC.1, D_k(σ)→1 as k→∞ for any fixed σ>0, so the only force keeping d_AI below 1 in the large-k limit is the radius factor R(T)<1. If refinement instead reduces representation noise σ while keeping R(T)=1, then for any finite refinement depth T, D_k(σ(T))→1 as k→∞, and the attenuation result fails unless σ(T) shrinks sufficiently fast as k grows. The paper acknowledges in footnote 4 that the multiplicative form is a benchmark, but the abstract and conclusion present complexity attenuation as a general qualitative result. I request a robustness analysis of the alternative noise-reduction refinement technology, or at least a precise statement in the theorems of which conclusions rely on radial rescaling versus log-convexity.

minor comments (5)

[§3.3–3.4] The notation for the agentic mismatch switches between d_AI_k(R;σ), d_AI_k(T;σ), and d_AI_k(B,β;k,σ); please define each object once at first use and keep the notation consistent throughout.
[Figure 6] Panel (a) labels the regimes 'A1 A2 A3' but the curve is not otherwise explained; please add a caption line stating which curve corresponds to which regime and how σ_min and σ_max are marked.
[Appendix A.1] In the proof of Theorem EC.1, the notation ~Z is used before it is formally introduced; please define the limiting random variable explicitly.
[§7.1] The statement that Σ is a compact subset of (0,∞) is fine, but the paper should note explicitly that compactness in (0,∞) means the feasible noise levels are bounded away from zero, so perfect fidelity is never feasible.
[References] Several references are listed as 'arXiv preprint' or 'Working paper' with 2025/2026 dates; please verify that all entries are publicly available and provide stable links or identifiers where applicable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's results follow from explicit model assumptions and self-contained derivations, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction and no load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central derivations are self-contained rather than circular. D_k(sigma), the intrinsic AI mismatch, is characterized in Theorem EC.1 from first principles: products are i.i.d. uniform on B_k(1), representation noise is Gaussian, and the dense-catalog limit selects the product minimizing the noisy score; the resulting truncated-Gaussian expectation is derived, not fitted. Lemma 1's linear scale invariance follows by normalizing the radius and noise, an exact algebraic step under the model. Theorem 2's no-collapse result is then a direct consequence of the monotonicity and limit properties of D_k(sigma) combined with Assumption 1's log-convex contraction, and the proof is written out in the appendix. No parameter is calibrated to a subset of data and then used to 'predict' a quantity that was part of the calibration. The self-citations that appear (e.g., Liang and Xu 2026, Xu et al. 2025a,b) are confined to the literature review and are not used to justify any theorem, uniqueness claim, or modeling restriction. The dependence on Liang (2026) is a borrowing of the spatial noise geometry and is explicitly acknowledged; the present paper extends it with an endogenous refinement choice that Liang (2026) does not study. The multiplicative refinement form is not smuggled in by citation: it is stated as Assumption 1, and footnote 4 explicitly labels it a benchmark. The dense-catalog limit n->infinity is likewise introduced as an explicit benchmark in Section 3.3, not as an output of the derivation, and any finite-catalog fragility is a modeling-robustness concern rather than a circularity. There is no self-definitional fit, no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' own prior work, and no renaming of a known empirical pattern as a new structural result. Accordingly, the paper receives a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is purely analytical: all parameters are primitives with no empirical fitting. The main technical assumption is the log-convex radial contraction in Assumption 1; the substantive assumptions are uniform product support and independent mean-zero Gaussian noise. No new physical or market entities are posited.

free parameters (5)

alpha (unit manual inspection cost)
Exogenous primitive; central to the manual collapse cutoff K(alpha). No data fitting.
beta (interaction friction)
Exogenous primitive; determines whether refinement starts and the active-region threshold.
B (attention budget)
Exogenous primitive; drives budget-constrained regimes and the fidelity allocation across segments.
sigma (representation noise per coordinate)
Exogenous in Sections 4-6 and chosen by the platform in Section 7. No empirical estimation.
R(T) contraction function
Functional primitive satisfying Assumption 1; specialized to e^{-T} in Proposition 4 and figures.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Products are distributed uniformly on the unit ball B_k(1) centered at the consumer's ideal point.
Section 3.1: this makes product availability symmetric in every direction and abstracts from catalog support heterogeneity. The paper calls it substantive.
domain assumption Representation noise is additive, mean-zero, Gaussian, independent across products and dimensions, with equal preference- and product-side variance.
Section 3.3 and Appendix A notation: this yields the truncated-Gaussian characterization of D_k(sigma). The paper notes a common preference-side error would raise mismatch.
ad hoc to paper Assumption 1: refinement acts as a radial contraction R(T) with R(0)=1, R'(T)<0, log-convex, and R(T) to 0.
Section 3.4: this reduced form guarantees convexity and scale invariance, and it underlies Theorems 2, 3, and 4. It is a maintained technical restriction.
domain assumption The agent screens a dense catalog, n goes to infinity.
Section 3.3: the limit removes finite catalog size as a constraint and isolates representation noise as the driver of mismatch.
domain assumption Consumer accepts the product if and only if realized mismatch is below an independent uniformly distributed tolerance threshold tau.
Section 3.5: this reduced form gives expected conversion 1 - E[mismatch], which is used throughout.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Product Search to Preference Articulation: The Economics of Agentic Commerce." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YULW2JCS

@misc{pith2026260808395,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Product Search to Preference Articulation: The Economics of Agentic Commerce},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YULW2JCS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08395}
}

read the original abstract

Generative AI is shifting digital commerce from browsing toward agentic search, in which consumers delegate product discovery to AI agents. We compare manual search, which accurately evaluates a limited product set, with agentic search, which screens a broad catalog through noisy representations of preferences and products. Preference complexity is the number of satisfaction-relevant dimensions that are difficult to articulate before search but readily evaluated upon inspection. Consumers have finite attention and choose search intensity: products inspected manually or preference-refinement depth with an agent. We obtain three findings. First, manual search collapses beyond a finite complexity threshold: inspection ceases, mismatch reaches the no-search benchmark, and platform revenue falls to zero. Agentic search avoids this collapse. Once refinement becomes worthwhile, it remains worthwhile as complexity rises; mismatch stays below the no-search benchmark and revenue remains positive, although articulation effort and mismatch may increase. Second, platforms rank the regimes by conversion revenue, whereas consumers also bear search expenditure. When manual inspection is sufficiently inexpensive, agentic search becomes revenue-superior before consumers voluntarily adopt it, creating an adoption lag in which consumers rationally continue manual search. Third, conditional on agentic participation, platforms may assign lower fidelity to consumers with larger attention budgets because they can offset noisier representations through additional refinement, yielding an inverted fidelity allocation. Agentic commerce thus shifts scarcity from product inspection to preference articulation, making consumers' willingness and ability to interact central to voluntary use and platform fidelity design.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[1]

Adida, Elodie, Tinglong Dai. 2025. Provider payment models for transformative technologies in healthcare SSRN Working Paper No. 5097711

work page 2025
[2]

Adobe . 2025. Adobe Analytics : Traffic to U.S. retail websites from generative AI sources jumps 1 , 200 percent. Adobe Blog, Mar 17, 2025

work page 2025
[3]

Allouah, Amine, Omar Besbes, Josu \'e D Figueroa, Yash Kanoria, Akshit Kumar. 2026. What is your ai agent buying? evaluation, biases, model dependence, & emerging implications of agentic e-commerce. Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2026\/ . 8697--8700

work page 2026
[4]

Anderson, Simon P., R \'e gis Renault. 1999. Pricing, product diversity, and search costs: A Bertrand-Chamberlin-Diamond model. RAND Journal of Economics\/ 30 (4) 719--735

work page 1999
[5]

Bastani, Hamsa, Gerard P Cachon. 2025. The human-ai contracting paradox SSRN Working Paper No. 5962739

work page 2025
[6]

Boyac , Tamer, Caner Canyakmaz, Francis de V \'e ricourt. 2024. Human and machine: The impact of machine input on decision making under cognitive limitations. Management Science\/ 70 (2) 1258--1275

work page 2024
[7]

Brynjolfsson, Erik, Danielle Li, Lindsey Raymond. 2025. Generative AI at work. Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 140 (2) 889--942

work page 2025
[8]

Cao, Shengyu, Ming Hu. 2026. A solicit-then-suggest model of agentic purchasing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.20972\/

arXiv 2026

Show all 41 references

[9]

Cohen, Maxime C, Tinglong Dai, Georgia Perakis, Narendra Agrawal, Gad Allon, Robert N Boute, Gerard P Cachon, Zhe Chen, Morris A Cohen, Rares Cristian, et al. 2026. OM forum---supply chain management in the AI era: A vision statement from the operations management community. M...

2026
[10]

Contentsquare . 2025. Ai is reshaping online shopping, with 30\ let an ai agent complete their purchases, new contentsquare survey finds. https://contentsquare.com/press/ai-is-reshaping-online-shopping/. Accessed August 4, 2026

2025
[11]

Dai, Tinglong, David Simchi-Levi, Michelle Xiao Wu, Yao Xie. 2026. Assured autonomy: How operations research powers and orchestrates generative AI systems. Production and Operations Management\/

2026
[12]

Dai, Tinglong, Shubhranshu Singh. 2025. Artificial intelligence on call: The physician's decision of whether to use AI in clinical practice. Journal of Marketing Research\/ 62 (5) 854--875

2025
[13]

Dai, Tinglong, Terry Taylor. 2025. Designing enterprise AI systems: Hallucination, creativity, and moral hazard SSRN Working Paper No. 5996714

2025
[14]

De V \'e ricourt, Francis, Huseyin Gurkan. 2026. Is your machine better than you? you may never know. Management Science\/ 72 (1) 558--574

2026
[15]

Preston McAfee

Deneckere, Raymond J., R. Preston McAfee. 1996. Damaged goods. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy\/ 5 (2) 149--174. doi:10.1111/j.1430-9134.1996.00149.x

1996
[16]

Eloundou, Tyna, Sam Manning, Pamela Mishkin, Daniel Rock. 2024. GPTs are GPTs : Labor market impact potential of LLMs . Science\/ 384 (6702) 1306--1308

2024
[17]

Goli, Ali, Amandeep Singh. 2024. Frontiers: Can large language models capture human preferences? Marketing Science\/ 43 (4) 709--722

2024
[18]

Hadfield, Gillian K, Andrew Koh. 2025. An economy of AI agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.01063\/

2025 arXiv
[19]

Ide, Enrique, Eduard Talamas. 2025. Artificial intelligence in the knowledge economy. Journal of Political Economy\/ 133 (12) 3762--3800

2025
[20]

Keppo, Jussi, Yuze Li, Gerry Tsoukalas, Nuo Yuan. 2026. On the fragility of AI agent collusion SSRN Working Paper No. 5386338; also arXiv:2603.20281

2026
[21]

Kumar, Akshit, Vahideh Manshadi, Akhilesh Tumu. 2026. How much should a conversational recommender system converse? Working paper\/

2026
[22]

Lancaster, Kelvin J. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy\/ 74 (2) 132--157

1966
[23]

Liang, Annie. 2026. Artificial intelligence clones. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.16996\/

2026
[24]

Liang, Chen, Fasheng Xu. 2026. When LLM agents negotiate: Private information and dynamic bargaining in supply chains. Available at SSRN 7199381\/

2026
[25]

Lu, Tao, Brian Tomlin. 2025. Augmenting the operations manager with a prediction machine SSRN Working Paper No. 5282711

2025
[26]

Malladi, Suraj. 2023. Searching in the dark and learning where to look. Working Paper, Cornell University\/ SSRN Working Paper 4084113

2023
[27]

McCall, John J. 1970. Economics of information and job search. Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 84 (1) 113--126

1970
[28]

Mussa, Michael, Sherwin Rosen. 1978. Monopoly and product quality. Journal of Economic Theory\/ 18 (2) 301--317

1978
[29]

Hofman, Eleanor W

Rothschild, David M., Markus Mobius, Jake M. Hofman, Eleanor W. Dillon, Daniel G. Goldstein, Nicole Immorlica, Sonia Jaffe, Brendan Lucier, Aleksandrs Slivkins, Matthew Vogel. 2025. The agentic economy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.15799\/

2025 arXiv
[30]

Shahidi, Peyman, Gili Rusak, Benjamin S Manning, Andrey Fradkin, John J Horton. 2025. The Coasean singularity? Demand , supply, and market design with AI agents. NBER Chapters\/

2025
[31]

Shapiro, Carl, Hal R. Varian. 1999. Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy\/ . Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

1999
[32]

Siderius, James, Robert A Shumsky, Alva Taylor. 2026. Use it or slowly lose it: Expertise atrophy with organizational ai usage. Available at SSRN 6398398\/

2026
[33]

Stigler, George J. 1961. The economics of information. Journal of Political Economy\/ 69 (3) 213--225

1961
[34]

Urgun, Can, Leeat Yariv. 2025. Contiguous search: Exploration and ambition on uncharted terrain. Journal of Political Economy\/ 133 (2) 522--567

2025
[35]

Wang, Mengxin, Dennis J Zhang, Heng Zhang. 2026. Large language models for market research: A data-augmentation approach. Marketing Science\/ 45 (4) 728--751

2026
[36]

Wang, Shaoyu, Ying-Ju Chen, Pin Gao, Yang Li. 2025. Sponsored search with ai-generated ad content. SSRN Working Paper No. 5724045\/

2025
[37]

Weitzman, Martin L. 1979. Optimal search for the best alternative. Econometrica\/ 47 (3) 641--654

1979
[38]

Worldpay . 2025. Ai agents set to transform how americans shop: \ 261 billion predicted in agentic commerce spending by 2030. https://corporate.worldpay.com/news-releases/news-release-details/ai-agents-set-transform-how-americans-shop-261-billion-predicted/. Accessed August 4, 2026

2025
[39]

Xu, Fasheng, Jing Hou, Wei Chen, Karen Xie. 2025 a . Generative AI and organizational structure in the knowledge economy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.00532\/

2025
[40]

Xu, Fasheng, Xiaoyu Wang, Wei Chen, Karen Xie. 2025 b . The economics of AI foundation models: Openness, competition, and governance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.15200\/

2025
[41]

Yang, S Alex, Angela Huyue Zhang. 2024. Generative ai and copyright: A dynamic perspective. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.17801\/

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Adida, Elodie, Tinglong Dai. 2025. Provider payment models for transformative technologies in healthcare SSRN Working Paper No. 5097711

work page 2025

[2] [2]

Adobe . 2025. Adobe Analytics : Traffic to U.S. retail websites from generative AI sources jumps 1 , 200 percent. Adobe Blog, Mar 17, 2025

work page 2025

[3] [3]

Allouah, Amine, Omar Besbes, Josu \'e D Figueroa, Yash Kanoria, Akshit Kumar. 2026. What is your ai agent buying? evaluation, biases, model dependence, & emerging implications of agentic e-commerce. Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2026\/ . 8697--8700

work page 2026

[4] [4]

Anderson, Simon P., R \'e gis Renault. 1999. Pricing, product diversity, and search costs: A Bertrand-Chamberlin-Diamond model. RAND Journal of Economics\/ 30 (4) 719--735

work page 1999

[5] [5]

Bastani, Hamsa, Gerard P Cachon. 2025. The human-ai contracting paradox SSRN Working Paper No. 5962739

work page 2025

[6] [6]

Boyac , Tamer, Caner Canyakmaz, Francis de V \'e ricourt. 2024. Human and machine: The impact of machine input on decision making under cognitive limitations. Management Science\/ 70 (2) 1258--1275

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Brynjolfsson, Erik, Danielle Li, Lindsey Raymond. 2025. Generative AI at work. Quarterly Journal of Economics\/ 140 (2) 889--942

work page 2025

[8] [8]

Cao, Shengyu, Ming Hu. 2026. A solicit-then-suggest model of agentic purchasing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.20972\/

arXiv 2026