Shopping by algorithm: How agentic AI deploys human heuristics as a surrogate consumer
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
- 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,916
- 2025The Bias is in the Details: An Assessment of Cognitive Bias in LLMscited by 10
- 2026Does Rank Still Matter? Position Bias When AI Agents Shop on Our Behalfcited by 4
- 2026Every Token Counts: Exact Likert-Scale Distributions for Measuring LLM Attitudes and Biasescited by 3
- 2026Whom Do AI Agents Work For? Role Assignment Induces Sponsorship Bias in LLM Recommenderscited by 2
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2025A Framework for Studying AI Agent Behavior: Evidence from Consumer Choice Experiments
- 2026From Product Search to Preference Articulation: The Economics of Agentic Commerce
- 2025What Is Your AI Agent Buying? Evaluation, Biases, Model Dependence, & Emerging Implications for Agentic E-Commerce
- 2026Strategic Buying Agents
- 2026LLM Consumer Behavior Theory: Foundations of a Novel Research Field
- 2025Human aversion? Do AI Agents Judge Identity More Harshly Than Performance
- 2025Can Generative AI agents behave like humans? Evidence from laboratory market experiments
- 2026Simulated Customers Never Walk Away: Decision Fidelity of LLM User Simulators Measured Against Real Purchase Outcomes