Providers can steer users' inference-depth choices by pairing per-token pricing with a strategic default allocation; defaults only change the implemented computation when users value the convenience of not customizing, otherwise users choose their token-optimal allocation. The paper gives closed-form user responses, a three-regime rule for optimal defaults, proves equilibrium existence, and illustrates how model/task traits shape equilibrium prices and budgets.

Main Finding

The paper models an LLM reasoning-as-a-service in which a provider sets a per-token price p and a default reasoning-token allocation rd, and a representative user then either keeps the default, customizes the reasoning budget, or exits. Formulated as a Stackelberg game, the authors (i) derive the user’s unique closed-form optimal customized allocation, (ii) characterize the set of defaults the user will accept (the default-acceptance region) in closed form (via the Lambert W function), (iii) show the provider’s optimal choice of default follows a three-regime rule and that equilibrium computation reduces to a one-dimensional price optimization, (iv) prove existence of a Stackelberg equilibrium, and (v) show defaults only have independent allocative power when users receive a positive convenience benefit from keeping defaults (δ > 0). Experimental fits using two compact open-weight reasoning models and five math/science benchmarks support the accuracy–token model and illustrate how model/task features determine equilibrium price, default, and reasoning allocation.

Key Points

• Service primitives and payoff models:
  • Accuracy as a function of reasoning tokens: Q(r) = D + A(1 − e^{-b r}) (diminishing returns).
  • Latency and billed tokens: t(r) = t0 + c r, T(r) = Tb + r.
  • User baseline utility: u0(r,p) = v Q(r) − p T(r) − θ t(r).
  • If the user keeps default: UK = u0(rd,p) + δ (δ ≥ 0 is default-specific convenience).
  • If the user customizes: solves B(p) = max_{r≥0} u0(r,p).
  • Provider payoff when serving with allocation r: G(p,r) = (p − ρ) T(r) + α Q(r) − β t(r).
• User’s customized allocation (Lemma 1):
  • Let a = v A and m(p) = p + θ c. Then
    • rc(p) = 0 if m(p) ≥ a b;
    • rc(p) = (1/b) log( a b / m(p) ) if m(p) < a b.
  • Intuition: the user adds reasoning only when marginal value of the first reasoning token v A b exceeds its effective marginal cost p + θ c.
  • The customization value B(p) is strictly decreasing in p with B′(p) = −(Tb + rc(p)).
• Default-acceptance region (Lemma 2):
  • Define h(p) = max{B(p) − δ, −δ} and K(p) = C(p) − h(p) (C(p) defined from primitives).
  • The set of defaults the user will keep is D(p) = {rd ≥ 0 : u0(rd,p) ≥ h(p)}.
  • D(p) is nonempty iff B(p) + δ ≥ 0. When nonempty, D(p) is a compact interval; its endpoints are given in closed form using the principal and −1 real branches of the Lambert W function solving ae^{-b r} + m(p) r = K(p).
  • Important consequences:
    • If δ = 0 (no convenience benefit), then D(p) = {rc(p)} when service is provided — the provider cannot induce any allocation other than the user’s optimal customized allocation.
    • Positive δ creates an interval of defaults the provider can choose to steer the user away from rc(p).
• Provider problem and equilibrium structure:
  • Any outcome in which the user customizes can be replicated by offering rd = rc(p) (the user would keep such a default under tie-breaking), so it suffices to search defaults inside D(p).
  • The provider’s joint optimization over (p, rd) reduces to a scalar optimization over p (the optimal default for a fixed p can be characterized via a three-regime rule).
  • Existence: a Stackelberg equilibrium exists; the provider serves iff the optimized service value is nonnegative.
• Empirical validation:
  • Experiments with two compact open-weight reasoning models across five mathematics and science benchmarks were used to fit Q(r), T(r), t(r) and validate the exponential-saturation accuracy–token model.
  • Empirical results illustrate how task and model parameters (A, b, D, c, Tb, etc.) affect equilibrium prices, defaults, and implemented allocations.

Data & Methods

• Analytical framework:
  • Complete-information Stackelberg game: provider (leader) chooses p ≥ 0 and rd ≥ 0 (or chooses no-service), user (follower) chooses K (keep), C (customize), or E (exit), with tie-breaking K ≻ C ≻ E on indifference boundaries.
  • Closed-form analysis exploits the concavity of u0(r,p) to obtain unique rc(p) and explicit B(p); acceptance thresholds lead to a Lambert W characterization of acceptance-interval endpoints.
  • Reduction of the provider’s two-dimensional optimization to a one-dimensional price search by (a) noting that customization outcomes can be replicated by offering rd = rc(p) and (b) restricting optimal defaults to D(p).
  • Formal proofs of uniqueness of rc(p), compactness of D(p), and existence of equilibrium are provided.
• Empirical methods:
  • Use of two compact open-weight reasoning models (self-hosted/open models; paper does not rely on large black-box APIs) and five benchmark tasks in mathematics and science to:
    • Measure accuracy Q(r) as a function of enforced reasoning-token budgets r.
    • Measure latency t(r) and billed tokens T(r).
    • Fit the model Q(r) = D + A(1 − e^{-b r}), linear T(r) and t(r), and estimate parameters (D, A, b, Tb, t0, c).
  • Plug estimated parameters into the analytical game to compute equilibrium prices, defaults, and allocations; compare predicted behaviors with observed model performance.

Implications for AI Economics

• Default design matters for metered LLM services, but only when users derive a convenience/status-quo benefit from defaults (δ > 0). Without such a benefit, default selection cannot change the implemented allocation — users will always choose their utility-maximizing customization.
• Pricing and latency jointly determine whether users choose deeper reasoning: the user’s marginal decision rule is p + θ c ≷ v A b. Hence, providers can influence reasoning depth by changing price p (directly) or by altering latency per token c (through engineering), with equivalent economic effects.
• A provider can strategically set rd to nudge users into higher- or lower-token consumption when δ > 0, enabling revenue- or accuracy-driven manipulation via defaults. This creates potential trade-offs:
  • For providers: defaults are an additional lever to extract surplus or to ensure certain accuracy/latency trade-offs.
  • For consumers and welfare: defaults can be used to steer users away from their true optima (if δ is large), raising concerns around transparency and potential consumer harm.
• Market and policy considerations:
  • In single-provider/self-hosted settings, the equilibrium reduces effectively to a price decision, simplifying comparative-static and regulatory analysis (providers will choose a price p* that balances revenue, accuracy-weight α, latency-cost β, and marginal costs ρ).
  • In multi-provider or competitive contexts (not analyzed here), default effects and per-token pricing could interact with competition to yield different welfare outcomes; the paper’s characterization of when defaults have allocative power (δ > 0) offers a clear criterion for when regulatory attention to defaults is warranted.
• Design recommendations:
  • If service designers aim to avoid unwanted steering, set neutral defaults (e.g., the user-optimal rc(p) or clearly label defaults and allow low-friction customization) and minimize δ (reduce convenience asymmetries).
  • If providers intend to nudge users (e.g., to conserve compute or ensure quality), increasing convenience for particular defaults is an effective mechanism, but it should be used with transparency and user control.
• Research directions:
  • Extend to heterogeneous user populations (distributions of v, θ) and multi-user/competition settings.
  • Study optimal mechanism design when provider can offer menus of defaults, subscription schemes, or bundle time/accuracy trade-offs.
  • Empirically quantify δ (the convenience/status-quo benefit) in real-world interfaces to predict practical impact of defaults.

If you want, I can: - Produce a brief one-page visual summary for a presentation (graphs + key equations), - Compute example equilibria for hypothetical parameter values to illustrate the three regimes, or - Outline how to extend the model to heterogeneous users or competing providers. Which would you prefer?