Delegating shopping to AI shifts the scarcity from seeing products to explaining tastes: agentic search avoids the collapse of manual browsing as preference complexity rises, but consumers may be slow to adopt it even when platforms would earn more, and platforms may lower AI accuracy for attention-rich users who can compensate through more interaction.

Main Finding

Agentic search (delegating product discovery to AI agents) shifts the consumer’s scarce input from inspecting products to articulating preferences. In a multi-dimensional model of product fit, manual search “collapses” at a finite level of preference complexity—inspection stops, mismatch returns to no-search levels, and platform revenue falls to zero—whereas agentic search avoids that collapse by making consumer-driven preference refinement (interaction depth) increasingly valuable as complexity rises. This generates (i) complexity attenuation under agentic search, (ii) an adoption lag because platforms may prefer agentic search earlier than consumers do, and (iii) inverted fidelity allocation where platforms optimally provide lower AI fidelity to attention-rich consumers who can compensate by refining preferences.

Key Points

• Framework and primitives

  • Products and latent consumer ideal are embedded in a k-dimensional Euclidean characteristic space; preference complexity k is the number of hard-to-articulate, satisfaction-relevant dimensions.
  • Consumers have a finite attention budget B and choose (a) a search regime—manual or agentic—and (b) search intensity: number m of inspected items under manual search, or interaction depth (amount of refinement) under agentic search.
  • Manual search: narrow scope (can only inspect few items) but perfect fidelity for inspected items. Agentic search: broad scope (effectively full catalog) but noisy representations of preferences/products; the consumer can interact with the agent to reduce representation noise at an attention cost.
  • Match quality is measured by expected Euclidean distance (mismatch) between selected product and the consumer’s latent ideal; conversion probability and platform revenue are decreasing functions of mismatch.

• Main comparative results

• Complexity collapse vs. attenuation - Manual search: as k (preference complexity) increases, inspection becomes less effective; beyond a finite cutoff the consumer stops inspecting (m→0), mismatch equals the no-search benchmark, and platform revenue → 0. - Agentic search: increasing k raises the marginal value of refinement. Once refinement is privately optimal at some k, the consumer continues to refine at all higher k. Mismatch and platform revenue worsen with k but remain strictly better than no-search; hence agentic search attenuates, rather than collapses under, complexity.
• Adoption lag (platform–consumer misalignment) - The platform ranks regimes by expected conversion revenue; consumers compare regimes by total loss = mismatch + search expenditure. - When manual inspection is sufficiently cheap, the platform prefers agentic search (higher revenue) at lower complexity than the consumer does, producing an interval where agentic search would be revenue-superior but consumers rationally continue manual search. The gap widens as manual inspection becomes cheaper.

• Inverted fidelity allocation (AI fidelity discrimination) - Consumers with larger attention budgets can compensate for noisier agentic representations by investing more refinement effort. Conditional on agentic participation, the platform optimally assigns weakly lower fidelity (more noisy representations) to attention-rich consumers while still finding them weakly more profitable. - In a tractable benchmark this ordering is strict when three conditions jointly hold: interaction friction is low enough that refinement is feasible; representation noise can be large enough to exhaust attention-constrained consumers’ budgets; and costs of accuracy to the platform are intermediate.

• Conceptual contribution

  • Makes consumer-controlled preference refinement endogenous in a noisy high-dimensional matching model. This departs from static one-shot noisy-AI benchmarks by showing how iterative refinement changes the comparative statics of dimensionality and creates platform–consumer threshold wedges and fidelity trade-offs.

Data & Methods

• Methodology
  • The paper is a theoretical/analytical model (no empirical estimation). It uses a Lancaster-style utility in a spatial k-dimensional product/preference space and builds on Liang (2026)’s spatial geometry for noisy AI-mediated matching.
  • Products are assumed drawn uniformly from a unit ball centered at the consumer’s latent ideal (symmetry assumption to isolate complexity effects).
  • Manual search: consumer samples m products and evaluates true fit perfectly; m is chosen subject to attention budget and per-inspection cost.
  • Agentic search: the agent screens the whole catalog using noisy representations of product and preference vectors. The consumer can interact (pay attention cost per unit) to refine the agent’s representation—modeled as reducing representation noise or narrowing the effective search space. Expected mismatch, conversion probability, and platform revenue are derived as functions of k, B, search intensity, and noise/fidelity parameters.
  • Analysis consists of closed-form comparative statics and threshold characterizations: determining when consumers stop inspecting under manual search, when refinement is chosen under agentic search, the complexity threshold where the platform switches regime preference, and the conditions for inverted fidelity allocation.
• Key modeling assumptions and limitations
  • Uniform product distribution on a ball centered at the consumer’s ideal (abstracts from catalog heterogeneity).
  • Perfect fidelity upon manual inspection, additive/noisy representations under agentic search.
  • Regimes are mutually exclusive for a purchase episode (hybrid/shortlist strategies are left to future work).
  • Interaction cost, attention budget, and fidelity costs are exogenous primitives.
  • Conversion/revenue functions are monotone in mismatch (no strategic seller side or dynamic learning of consumer types).

Implications for AI Economics

• Reframes the central scarcity in agentic commerce: attention shifts from product inspection to preference articulation. Effective delegation requires consumers to invest attention in making preferences legible to agents, even if agents can access broad catalogs.
• Platform design and strategy
  • Platforms may have an incentive to roll out agentic capabilities even before widespread consumer adoption (because they capture higher conversion revenue earlier than consumers perceive private benefit), suggesting active nudges, subsidies, or UI/UX design to overcome voluntary-adoption frictions.
  • Fidelity design should account for consumer heterogeneity in attention budgets. Platforms might optimally degrade fidelity for attention-rich segments (who can self-correct) and concentrate fidelity investments on attention-poor segments—raising both practical and ethical/regulatory questions about differential treatment.
  • Pricing and monetization: platforms could subsidize consumer articulation (e.g., guided elicitation, incentive mechanisms) or internalize the attention cost to accelerate adoption and capture higher revenue.
• Consumer welfare and market outcomes
  • Agentic search mitigates total collapse of match quality as preference complexity rises, improving expected consumer outcomes in high-k categories (conditional on engaging in refinement).
  • Yet misalignment between platform revenue motives and consumer private loss can leave socially beneficial agentic features underused without active platform intervention.
• Empirical and policy directions
  • Empirical validation: measure how interaction depth affects match quality and conversion across product categories with varying k; estimate attention budgets and per-interaction friction. Use A/B tests that vary AI fidelity and guided elicitation to observe adoption thresholds and welfare impacts.
  • Policy considerations: transparency and fairness of fidelity allocation (are attention-poor consumers systematically advantaged/disadvantaged?), consent for delegation, and potential regulation of differential AI service quality.
• Extensions and open questions
  • Hybrid regimes (agent shortlist + manual inspection) and dynamic learning of preferences across repeated purchases.
  • Non-uniform catalogs, strategic seller responses (assortment and pricing), and endogenous platform investment in lowering interaction friction.
  • Welfare trade-offs when platforms subsidize articulation to speed adoption vs. extract rent through differential fidelity.

Taken together, the paper highlights that agentic commerce does not eliminate consumer effort; it reallocates it toward making preferences legible. This reallocation has concrete effects on adoption dynamics, platform incentives, and how fidelity should be targeted across heterogeneous consumers.