Cited by 7Information Retrieval and Search BehaviorConsumer Market Behavior and PricingAI in Service Interactions

What Is Your AI Agent Buying? Evaluation, Biases, Model Dependence, & Emerging Implications of Agentic E-Commerce

Open access
Allouah, Amine, Besbes, Omar, Figueroa, Josué D., Kanoria, Yash, Kumar, Akshit·2026·Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2026

Abstract

Online marketplaces will be transformed by autonomous AI agents acting on behalf of consumers. Rather than humans browsing and clicking, AI agents can parse webpages or interact through APIs to evaluate products, and transact. This raises a fundamental question: what do AI agents buy—and why? We develop ACES, a sandbox environment that pairs a platform-agnostic agent with a fully programmable mock marketplace to study this. We first explore aggregate choices, revealing that modal choices can differ across models, with AI agents sometimes concentrating on a few products, raising competition questions. We then analyze the current drivers of choices through randomized experiments on product positions and listing attributes. Models show sizeable and heterogeneous position effects: all favor the top row, yet different models prefer different columns, undermining the assumption of a universal ''top'' rank. They penalize sponsored tags, reward endorsements, and sensitivities to price, ratings, and reviews are directionally as expected, but vary sharply across models. Our findings reveal how AI agents behave in e-commerce, and surface concrete monitoring, seller strategy, platform design, and regulatory questions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3774904.3792943

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Jur Gaarlandt, Wesley Korver, Nathan Furr, and Andrew Shipilov. 2025. Ai agents are changing how people shop. here's what that means for brands. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 26 (2025).
  2. Daniel McFadden. 1974. Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Frontiers in Econometrics, Paul Zarembka (Ed.). Academic Press, 105-142.
  3. Yingxuan Yang, Mulei Ma, Yuxuan Huang, Huacan Chai, Chenyu Gong, Haoran Geng, Yuanjian Zhou, Ying Wen, Meng Fang, Muhao Chen, Shangding Gu, Ming Jin, Costas Spanos, Yang Yang, Pieter Abbeel, Dawn Song, Weinan Zhang, and Jun Wang. 2025. Agentic Web: Weaving the Next Web with AI Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.21206 (2025). · arXiv

Authors
Allouah, A., Besbes, O., Figueroa, J. D., Kanoria, Y., & Kumar, A.
Affiliations
  • MyCustomAI, Santa Clara, USA
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Yale University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2026
Publisher
ACM
Published
2026-04-12
Pages
8697-8700
OpenAlex
W7152735904
Cited by
7
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 7
FWCI
74.40
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Market Behavior and Pricing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI in Service Interactions
Keywords
autonomous AI agents, online marketplaces, product evaluation, model dependence, position effect, product listings, online reviews, price sensitivity, sandbox, platform design, e-commerce regulation, seller strategies

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review