Digital search is undergoing a fundamental transformation from a human-driven process of discovery to an agent-mediated system of delegated decision-making. In the traditional model of digital search, users translate intent into keyword-based queries, evaluate ranked lists of links, and execute decisions outside the search interface. In an AI-native world, users express goals in natural language, agents interpret these intentions, and outcomes are returned as recommendations or executed decisions. This shift moves search from a link-based user interface to an embedded system component, with implications for transparency, competition, and monetization. The resulting system design problem raises key questions about information quality and access, trust, incentive alignment, and market structure. Early evidence from experimental agent-mediated marketplaces and economic theory suggests that small design choices, such as how stakeholders access information, how options are surfaced, and how actions are executed, have first-order effects on efficiency, competition, and the welfare of consumers and firms. We propose that the future of search will be determined not by incremental improvements in ranking algorithms and natural-language interfaces, but by the design of open, transparent, and competitive agentic systems that govern how decisions are made and how markets operate, highlighting a set of grand challenges at the intersection of AI, economics, and system design.

Production is a sequence of steps that can be executed (1) manually, (2) augmented with AI, or (3) fully automated within contiguous AI-executed steps called ''chains.'' Firms optimally bundle steps into tasks and then jobs, trading off specialization gains against coordination costs. We characterize the optimal assignment of humans and AI to steps and the firm's resulting job structure, showing that comparative advantage logic can fail with AI chaining. The model implies non-linear productivity gains from AI quality improvements and admits a CES representation at the macro level. Empirical evidence supports the model's key predictions that (1) AI-executed steps co-occur in chains, (2) dispersion of AI-exposed steps lowers AI execution at the job level, and (3) adjacency to AI-executed steps increases the likelihood that a step is AI-executed.

We study markets where firms compete for consumer attention by subsidizing costly product inspection. These subsidies do not change product quality, but they alter the order in which consumers search by lowering inspection costs. We establish a subsidy-sorting principle: in any equilibrium, higher-quality firms provide weakly larger subsidies, leading consumers to search in descending subsidy order. A unique equilibrium survives forward-induction reasoning in the spirit of the Intuitive Criterion: low-quality firms are never inspected, intermediate-quality firms separate with strictly increasing subsidies, and high-quality firms pool at the full subsidy. This equilibrium maximizes information revelation among all possible outcomes and ensures efficient inspection. We then extend the analysis to AI-mediated platforms that can create and price inspection tokens. The platform's optimal linear pricing leads to excessive inspection relative to the social optimum. While this distortion does not reduce consumer welfare, it reallocates surplus from sellers to the platform and consumers.

Motivated by agentic markets – two-sided markets in which consumers and businesses are assisted by AI tools that facilitate consumers' search – we study the impact of improved search technology on learning and welfare in markets. We put forth a model where consumers engage in costly search to acquire signals of product fit prior to purchase. The market tracks indications of fit for searched products and indications of quality for chosen products, thereby guiding searches. We characterize the long-run steady-state of the resulting dynamics as well as the impact of improving search technology. We find cheaper search improves learning and consumer surplus, whereas more informative search can degrade both unless the market learns as much as consumers about the products by, for example, “reading the transcripts” of agentic conversations. Finally, we consider the impact of search improvements on how businesses set prices. At equilibrium prices in symmetric markets, consumer surplus is improved by cheaper search but may be decreased by more informative search, due to weakened inter-business competition.

Artificial intelligence feels omnipresent, yet the disruption many expect has not fully arrived. The main reason is not model capability, nor even the tools built to harness those models. Rather, most organizations are still using AI to accelerate workflows designed for a pre-AI world. We offer a three-stage lens: Augmentation, Automation, and Reconstruction, and argue that the most consequential disruption resides in the third stage where workflows and markets are rebuilt around delegation, machine-to-machine interaction, continuous monitoring, and auditable constraints. Achieving this system-level transformation takes time: it requires trust and accountability infrastructure, machine-legible and interoperable data and interfaces, the design and adoption of these new workflows, and economic incentives that favor reconstruction rather than local optimization: the complementary investments that produce the familiar "productivity J-curve" of general-purpose technologies. We illustrate this transition through examples in consumer markets, education, news, and coding. Finally, we emphasize a normative point: the agentic future is not predetermined. Leaders must both skate to where the puck is going and actively steer it toward a good place, ensuring innovation delivers welfare gains felt by businesses and consumers around the world.

Generative AI has transformed human-computer interaction by enabling natural language interfaces and the emergence of autonomous agents capable of acting on users' behalf. While early applications have improved individual productivity, these gains have largely been confined to predefined tasks within existing workflows. We argue that the more profound economic impact lies in reducing communication frictions between consumers and businesses. This shift could reorganize markets, redistribute power, and catalyze the creation of new products and services. We explore the implications of an agentic economy, where assistant agents act on behalf of consumers and service agents represent businesses, interacting programmatically to facilitate transactions. A key distinction we draw is between unscripted interactions – enabled by technical advances in natural language and protocol design – and unrestricted interactions, which depend on market structures and governance. We examine the current limitations of siloed and end-to-end agents, and explore future scenarios shaped by technical standards and market dynamics. These include the potential tension between agentic walled gardens and an open web of agents, implications for advertising and discovery, the evolution of micro-transactions, and the unbundling and rebundling of digital goods. Ultimately, we argue that the architecture of agentic communication will determine the extent to which generative AI democratizes access to economic opportunity.

It's an honor for us to serve as the SIGecom Executive Committee. As the incoming leadership team, we began our term with a deep appreciation for the strong and diverse community that has grown around the intersections of economics and computation. Our goals are to support the SIG's continued growth while emphasizing interdisciplinary engagement, recognition of impact, community involvement, and encouraging diversity across a range of dimensions.

Two sellers compete to sell identical products to a single buyer. Each seller chooses an arbitrary mechanism, possibly involving lotteries, to sell their product. The utility-maximizing buyer can choose to participate in one or both mechanisms, resolving them in either order. Given a common prior over buyer values, how should the sellers design their mechanisms to maximize their respective revenues? We first consider a Stackelberg setting where one seller (Alice) commits to her mechanism and the other seller (Bob) best-responds. We show how to construct a simple and approximately-optimal single-lottery mechanism for Alice that guarantees her a quarter of the optimal monopolist's revenue, for any regular distribution. Along the way we prove a structural result: for any single-lottery mechanism of Alice, there will always be a best response mechanism for Bob consisting of a single take-it-or-leave-it price. We also show that no mechanism (single-lottery or otherwise) can guarantee Alice more than a 1/e fraction of the monopolist revenue. Finally, we show that our approximation result does not extend to Nash equilibrium: there exist instances in which a monopolist could extract full surplus, but neither competing seller obtains positive revenue at any equilibrium choice of mechanisms.

As LLM agents advance, they are increasingly mediating economic decisions, ranging from product discovery to transactions, on behalf of users. Such applications promise benefits but also raise many questions about agent accountability and value for users. Addressing these questions requires understanding how agents behave in realistic market conditions. However, previous research has largely evaluated agents in constrained settings, such as single-task marketplaces (e.g., negotiation) or structured two-agent interactions. Real-world markets are fundamentally different: they require agents to handle diverse economic activities and coordinate within large, dynamic ecosystems where multiple agents with opaque behaviors may engage in open-ended dialogues. To bridge this gap, we investigate two-sided agentic marketplaces where Assistant agents represent consumers and Service agents represent competing businesses. To study these interactions safely, we develop Magentic-Marketplace– a simulated environment where Assistants and Services can operate. This environment enables us to study key market dynamics: the utility agents achieve, behavioral biases, vulnerability to manipulation, and how search mechanisms shape market outcomes. Our experiments show that frontier models can approach optimal welfare– but only under ideal search conditions. Performance degrades sharply with scale, and all models exhibit severe first-proposal bias, creating 10-30x advantages for response speed over quality. These findings reveal how behaviors emerge across market conditions, informing the design of fair and efficient agentic marketplaces.

Motivated by online platforms such as job markets, we study an agent choosing from a list of candidates, each with a hidden quality that determines match value. The agent observes only a noisy ranking of the candidates plus a binary signal that indicates whether each candidate is "free" or "busy." Being busy is positively correlated with higher quality, but can also reduce value due to decreased availability. We study the agent's optimal selection problem in the presence of ranking noise and free-busy signals and ask how the accuracy of the ranking tool impacts outcomes. In a setting with one high-valued candidate and an arbitrary number of low-valued candidates, we show that increased accuracy of the ranking tool can result in reduced social welfare. This can occur for two reasons: agents may be more likely to make offers to busy candidates, and (paradoxically) may be more likely to select lower-ranked candidates when rankings are more indicative of quality. We further discuss conditions under which these results extend to more general settings.

In many settings – like market research and social choice – people may be presented with unfamiliar options. Classical mechanisms may perform poorly because they fail to incentivize people to learn about these options, or worse, encourage counterproductive information acquisition. We formalize this problem in a model of robust mechanism design where agents find it costly to learn about their values for a product or policy. We identify sharp limits on the designer's ability to elicit, or learn about, these values. Where these limits do not bind, we propose two-stage mechanisms that are detail-free and robust: the second stage is a classical mechanism and the first stage asks participants to predict the results of the second stage.

In the digital economy, technological innovations make it cheaper to produce high-quality content. For example, generative AI tools reduce costs for creators who develop content to be distributed online, but can also reduce production costs for the users who consume that content. These innovations can thus lead to disintermediation, since consumers may choose to use these technologies directly, bypassing intermediaries. To investigate when technological improvements lead to disintermediation, we study a game with an intermediary, suppliers of a production technology, and consumers. First, we show disintermediation occurs whenever production costs are too high or too low. We then investigate the consequences of disintermediation for welfare and content quality at equilibrium. While the intermediary is welfare-improving, the intermediary extracts all gains to social welfare and its presence can raise or lower content quality. We further analyze how disintermediation is affected by the level of competition between suppliers and the intermediary's fee structure. More broadly, our results take a step towards assessing how production technology innovations affect the survival of intermediaries and impact the digital economy.

We study a game played between advertisers in an online ad platform. The platform sells ad impressions by first-price auction and provides autobidding algorithms that optimize bids on each advertiser's behalf, subject to advertiser constraints such as budgets. Crucially, these constraints are strategically chosen by the advertisers. The chosen constraints define an "inner'' budget-pacing game for the autobidders. Advertiser payoffs in the constraint-choosing "metagame'' are determined by the equilibrium reached by the autobidders. Advertiser preferences can be more general than what is implied by their constraints: we assume only that they have weakly decreasing marginal value for clicks and weakly increasing marginal disutility for spending money. Nevertheless, we show that at any pure Nash equilibrium of the metagame, the resulting allocation obtains at least half of the liquid welfare of any allocation and this bound is tight. We also obtain a 4-approximation for any mixed Nash equilibrium or Bayes-Nash equilibria. These results rely on the power to declare budgets: if advertisers can specify only a (linear) value per click or an ROI target but not a budget constraint, the approximation factor at equilibrium can be as bad as linear in the number of advertisers.

We study a communication game between a sender and receiver where the sender has access to a set of informative signals about a state of the world. The sender chooses one of her signals, called an ``anecdote'' and communicates it to the receiver. The receiver takes an action, yielding a utility for both players. Sender and receiver both care about the state of the world but are also influenced by a personal preference so that their ideal actions differ. We characterize perfect Bayesian equilibria when the sender cannot commit to a particular communication scheme. In this setting the sender faces ``persuasion temptation'': she is tempted to select a more biased anecdote to influence the receiver's action. Anecdotes are still informative to the receiver but persuasion comes at the cost of precision. This gives rise to ``informational homophily'' where the receiver prefers to listen to like-minded senders because they provide higher-precision signals. In particular, we show that a sender with access to many anecdotes will essentially send the minimum or maximum anecdote even though with high probability she has access to an anecdote close to the state of the world that would almost perfectly reveal it to the receiver. In contrast to the classic Crawford-Sobel model, full revelation is a knife-edge equilibrium and even small differences in personal preferences will induce highly polarized communication and a loss in utility for any equilibrium. We show that for fat-tailed anecdote distributions the receiver might even prefer to talk to poorly informed senders with aligned preferences rather than a knowledgeable expert whose preferences may differ from her own. We also show that under commitment differences in personal preferences no longer affect communication and the sender will generally report the most representative anecdote closest to the posterior mean for common distributions.

We develop a model of content filtering as a game between the filter and the content consumer, where the latter incurs information costs for examining the content. Motivating examples include censoring misinformation, spam/phish filtering, and recommender systems. When the attacker is exogenous, we show that improving the filter's quality is weakly Pareto improving, but has no impact on equilibrium payoffs until the filter becomes sufficiently accurate. Further, if the filter does not internalize the information costs, its lack of commitment power may render it useless and lead to inefficient outcomes. When the attacker is also strategic, improvements to filter quality may sometimes decrease equilibrium payoffs.

We study mechanisms for selling a single item when buyers have private costs for participating in the mechanism. An agent's participation cost can also be interpreted as an outside option value that she must forego to participate. This substantially changes the revenue maximization problem, which becomes non-convex in the presence of participation costs. For multiple buyers, we show how to construct a $(2+\epsilon)$-approximately revenue-optimal mechanism in polynomial time. Our approach makes use of a many-buyers-to-single-buyer reduction, and in the single-buyer case our mechanism improves to an FPTAS. We also bound the menu size and the sample complexity for the optimal single-buyer mechanism. Moreover, we show that posting a single price in the single-buyer case is in fact optimal under the assumption that either (1) the participation cost is independent of the value, and the value distribution has decreasing marginal revenue or monotone hazard rate; or (2) the participation cost is a concave function of the value. When there are multiple buyers, we show that sequential posted pricing guarantees a large fraction of the optimal revenue under similar conditions.

We study a game between autobidding algorithms that compete in an online advertising platform. Each autobidder is tasked with maximizing its advertiser's total value over multiple rounds of a repeated auction, subject to budget and return-on-investment constraints. We propose a gradient-based learning algorithm that is guaranteed to satisfy all constraints and achieves vanishing individual regret. Our algorithm uses only bandit feedback and can be used with the first- or second-price auction, as well as with any"intermediate"auction format. Our main result is that when these autobidders play against each other, the resulting expected liquid welfare over all rounds is at least half of the expected optimal liquid welfare achieved by any allocation. This holds whether or not the bidding dynamics converges to an equilibrium.

In online combinatorial allocations/auctions, n bidders sequentially arrive, each with a combinatorial valuation (such as submodular/XOS) over subsets of m indivisible items. The aim is to immediately allocate a subset of the remaining items to maximize the total welfare, defined as the sum of bidder valuations. A long line of work has studied this problem when the bidder valuations come from known independent distributions. In particular, for submodular/XOS valuations, we know 2-competitive algorithms/mechanisms that set a fixed price for each item and the arriving bidders take their favorite subset of the remaining items given these prices. However, these algorithms traditionally presume the availability of the underlying distributions as part of the input to the algorithm. Contrary to this assumption, practical scenarios often require the learning of distributions, a task complicated by limited sample availability. This paper investigates the feasibility of achieving O(1)-competitive algorithms under the realistic constraint of having access to only a limited number of samples from the underlying bidder distributions. Our first main contribution shows that a mere single sample from each bidder distribution is sufficient to yield an O(1)competitive algorithm for submodular/XOS valuations. This result leverages a novel extension of the secretary-style analysis, employing the sample to have the algorithm compete against itself. Although online, this first approach does not provide an online truthful mechanism. Our second main contribution shows that a polynomial number of samples suffices to yield a (2+epsilon)-competitive online truthful mechanism for submodular/XOS valuations and any constant epsilon > 0. This result is based on a generalization of the median-based algorithm for the single-item prophet inequality problem to combinatorial settings with multiple items.

We introduce a model of online algorithms subject to strict constraints on data retention. An online learning algorithm encounters a stream of data points, one per round, generated by some stationary process. Crucially, each data point can request that it be removed from memory m rounds after it arrives. To model the impact of removal, we do not allow the algorithm to store any information or calculations between rounds other than a subset of the data points (subject to the retention constraints). At the conclusion of the stream, the algorithm answers a statistical query about the full dataset. We ask: what level of performance can be guaranteed as a function of m? We illustrate this framework for multidimensional mean estimation and linear regression problems. We show it is possible to obtain an exponential improvement over a baseline algorithm that retains all data as long as possible. Specifically, we show that m = Poly (d, log(1/epsilon)) retention suffices to achieve mean squared error. after observing O (1/epsilon) d-dimensional data points. This matches the error bound of the optimal, yet infeasible, algorithm that retains all data forever. We also show a nearly matching lower bound on the retention required to guarantee error epsilon. One implication of our results is that data retention laws are insufficient to guarantee the right to be forgotten even in a non-adversarial world in which firms merely strive to (approximately) optimize the performance of their algorithms. Our approach makes use of recent developments in the multidimensional random subset sum problem to simulate the progression of stochastic gradient descent under a model of adversarial noise, which may be of independent interest.