When shippers delegate carrier choice to LLMs, agents herd on the same few carriers—one carrier can attract up to 76% of requests—creating risky concentration; disclosing each carrier's remaining daily capacity cuts concentration by a third and doubles shipper surplus, while other platform tweaks have little detectable effect.

Main Finding

When firms delegate carrier selection to LLM-based shipper agents, choices concentrate onto a single carrier immediately (algorithmic monoculture). Market feedback—congestion-driven price increases and capacity limits—partially counters that lock-in by pushing demand to unrated entrants, but platform information design is the decisive lever: disclosing carriers’ remaining daily capacity substantially reduces concentration (≈1/3 reduction) and doubles shipper surplus, while other interventions (vendor diversification, list-order randomization, popularity display, or revealing true reliability) do not.

Key Points

• Immediate monoculture: LLM shipper agents (GPT, Claude, Gemini) converge on the same modal first-choice carrier on day one for a fixed carrier draw; a single carrier attracted up to 76% of requests in some runs (e.g., GPT sent 34–38 of 50 daily requests to the same carrier).
• Two feedback loops shape outcomes:
  • Rating loop (+): early favorites accrue reviews and reputational advantage, which entrenches them.
  • Price/congestion loop (−): when a carrier becomes crowded its price rises, causing price-sensitive agents to trial cheaper, unrated entrants.
• Exposure effect: concentration rises sharply as the number of displayed candidate carriers L increases; the steep increase occurs once L crosses roughly 10→15 for two vendors (Anthropic’s Claude was an exception and remained flat).
• Market variability: which carrier becomes dominant varies widely across independently sampled carrier populations. Showing true underlying carrier quality instead of estimated ratings did not reduce either concentration levels or this variability.
• Cold-start avoided: contrary to standard reputation-cold-start concerns, newcomers receive trials because congestion-induced high prices at the favorite drive agents to try unrated entrants; entrants’ ratings converge toward true quality over 30 days.
• Interventions tested:
  • Capacity disclosure (real-time remaining daily capacity): effective — reduced concentration by ~33% and doubled shipper surplus.
  • Vendor diversification (splitting shippers across LLMs): no clear effect.
  • List-order randomization: no clear effect.
  • Popularity display (showing how often carriers are chosen): no clear effect.
  • Replacing live estimated ratings with true reliability disclosure: no meaningful effect on concentration or variability.
• Baselines: a deterministic common-score rule concentrates strongly even at small L; pure random choice gives a low-concentration floor. Candidate-set overlap contributes importantly to the exposure-driven concentration.

Data & Methods

• Agent-based simulation embedding real LLM agents:
  • Agents: 50 shipper agents per run, implemented with commercial LLMs (OpenAI GPT, Anthropic Claude, Google Gemini) plus algorithmic baselines (deterministic scoring, random choice).
  • Carriers: 20 carriers per sampled market; each carrier has initial unit price, hidden true reliability ρ_j, capacity weight, and route specialty drawn independently from [0.3, 0.9]. Initial track records n0 follow a heavy-tailed Pareto-based draw (some incumbents have many reviews; some have none).
  • Time horizon: 30 simulated days; each shipper issues one load per day (random origin–destination distance index and weight); waterfall tendering is used (top-3 ranked carriers per shipper — the platform tenders down the list until a carrier with capacity accepts).
  • Exposure L: number of candidate carriers displayed to each agent, varied across {3, 5, 10, 15, 20}.
  • Trust signals: three conditions — (i) true reliability disclosed directly, (ii) frozen static initial rating, (iii) live endogenous customer ratings.
  • Interventions: capacity disclosure (remaining daily capacity shown), list-order randomization, popularity display, vendor-mix (diversify LLMs across shippers).
  • Pricing dynamics: carriers update unit prices daily in response to excess-demand pressure; price growth parameter α = 0.10; bounds prevent prices below 1.05×cost and above 1.5 (index).
  • Ratings: after each served shipment, a binary review is left (positive with prob ρ_j); displayed rating is running mean and count.
• Experimental scope and logging:
  • 226 experimental cells, 5–10 independent simulation runs per condition, ≈190,000 individual carrier choices recorded.
  • Every prompt and response was logged for auditability.
• Key outcome measures:
  • Concentration metric κ (market concentration over carriers; reported as time series and end states).
  • Shipper surplus, carrier revenues, and variability across runs/seeds.

Implications for AI Economics

• Platform design outranks model choice: before focusing on which LLMs firms deploy or regulating models, platform-level information design (notably capacity visibility) is the most effective instrument to prevent harmful concentration and improve welfare in AI-mediated matching markets.
• Algorithmic monoculture is rapid but not irrevocable: correlated model preferences create extreme first-day concentration, but endogenous market responses (congestion pricing, capacity constraints) can enable market repair and give entrants opportunities—so static analyses of monoculture can overstate permanent lock-in.
• Exposure control is critical: platforms control candidate exposure L; keeping L below the transition region (~10) can prevent the steep rise in concentration. The exact threshold and sensitivity vary by model population and candidate-set overlap.
• Simple transparency (revealing true quality) is insufficient: disclosing true reliabilities did not lower concentration or its unpredictability, implying that information revealing intrinsic quality alone cannot counteract correlated agent choice and congestion dynamics.
• Policy and antitrust concerns: LLM-mediated coordination can produce large demand spikes to single firms rapidly, creating operational strain and potential anti-competitive concentration. Regulators and platforms should consider rules or design changes (e.g., capacity signals, application limits) that manage congestion and exposure.
• Research directions: field validation, testing deeper waterfalls (beyond top-3 tenders), richer review processes, adaptive LLMs that learn from market feedback, robustness to model updates, and strategic manipulation risks (e.g., platforms or carriers influencing displayed candidate lists or capacity signals).