mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Shopping by algorithm: How agentic AI deploys human heuristics as a surrogate consumer

arXiv 2609.28372 ↗First posted 23 Sep 2026econ.GN cs.AI q-fin.ECcited by 1

On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Financial trading and forecasting agents also fits: Social simulation and multi-agent debate

Abstract (arXiv)

Consumers increasingly delegate purchasing decisions to Large Language Models (LLMs) acting as surrogate consumers. Using "Tool-Lab," an adaptation of information-board process tracing that places product attributes behind costly tool calls, we examine how marketing pricing cues (i.e., just-below pricing and promotional framing) influence AI shopping agents. Across eight commercially deployed LLMs from three providers, we trace pre-choice information acquisition. Under zero cost, pricing cues rarely mislead. Imposing acquisition costs under a vague goal prompt leads LLMs to omit diagnostic attributes required to compute unit price and choose suboptimal choices resembling human heuristics. Relative to a specific goal prompt that mainly preserves diagnostic search and choice optimality, a vague goal prompt under constraints creates a search-mediated vulnerability. This research demonstrates that marketing heuristics in delegated AI shopping are governed by storefront information architecture, not necessarily immutable LLM flaws.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Financial trading and forecasting agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 5 of its 83 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Sep 2026.

Builds on

5 of 83 references.

References · 5

  1. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,916
  2. 2025The Bias is in the Details: An Assessment of Cognitive Bias in LLMscited by 10
  3. 2026Does Rank Still Matter? Position Bias When AI Agents Shop on Our Behalfcited by 4
  4. 2026Every Token Counts: Exact Likert-Scale Distributions for Measuring LLM Attitudes and Biasescited by 3
  5. 2026Whom Do AI Agents Work For? Role Assignment Induces Sponsorship Bias in LLM Recommenderscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025A Framework for Studying AI Agent Behavior: Evidence from Consumer Choice Experiments
  2. 2026From Product Search to Preference Articulation: The Economics of Agentic Commerce
  3. 2025What Is Your AI Agent Buying? Evaluation, Biases, Model Dependence, & Emerging Implications for Agentic E-Commerce
  4. 2026Strategic Buying Agents
  5. 2026LLM Consumer Behavior Theory: Foundations of a Novel Research Field
  6. 2025Human aversion? Do AI Agents Judge Identity More Harshly Than Performance
  7. 2025Can Generative AI agents behave like humans? Evidence from laboratory market experiments
  8. 2026Simulated Customers Never Walk Away: Decision Fidelity of LLM User Simulators Measured Against Real Purchase Outcomes