Vahideh Manshadi Publications

Conversational recommender systems powered by generative AI can enhance personalization by facilitating information elicitation through follow-up questions. However, engaging in these conversations imposes a communication cost on users. As platforms with different objectives and monetization models deploy these systems, a central question is: how does the platform’s objective and sellers’ strategic response shape the design of these systems in terms of their elicitation strategy? We develop a parsimonious model of conversational elicitation in which interaction generates noisy preference information and imposes a communication cost borne by the user. A user-welfare-maximizing platform elicits more information when accurate niche matching yields large gains, even when niche users are rare. In contrast, under a conversion objective, for the same setting, the optimal strategy is to immediately recommend the same mainstream option to all users with no or minimal preference elicitation because the incremental conversion benefit from improved matching is bounded, while communication costs are borne by all users. When prices are endogenous and the platform earns a commission, increased elicitation is again optimal because improved screening raises equilibrium prices and platform revenue; however, these price responses can counteract consumer benefits and reduce user welfare. The model also highlights that the optimal elicitation intensity increases with preference heterogeneity, helping explain why conversational systems ask more in highly differentiated categories than in low-heterogeneity ones. We complement the theory with a dataset of long-form product queries that vary in length and informational content. Using our dataset and LLM-based user simulation, we quantify how additional information impacts user decisions and demonstrate that the magnitude of this impact depends on the degree of preference heterogeneity. Additionally, this dataset provides a testbed for measuring the (incremental) value of preference elicitation and may be of independent interest.

To meet voluntary climate targets, firms often complement internal decarbonization efforts by purchasing carbon credits in the voluntary carbon market (VCM), which finance projects that reduce emissions elsewhere. However, these emissions reductions are difficult to verify, and growing evidence of overcrediting has cast doubt on the VCM's potential to genuinely offset emissions. We investigate how the VCM's defining features shape its climate effectiveness. Our model captures three central elements: adverse selection, as high-quality projects that truly reduce emissions are costlier yet difficult to distinguish from low-quality ones; imperfect third-party certification, as projects are screened based on a noisy signal of quality; and buyer preferences for non-carbon attributes, as some firms value credits that generate observable social or economic co-benefits beyond reducing emissions. We show that the market fails to sustain trade if certification is sufficiently noisy, as quality uncertainty erodes buyer confidence and triggers a market-for-lemons collapse. However, demand for co-benefits can sustain markets that would otherwise collapse. Yet in such cases, the market remains active but yields limited carbon abatement, as most traded credits are low-quality. We then examine policy and market design interventions reflecting recent developments in practice, such as penalizing buyers for greenwashing and offering credit portfolios. We show that these measures can be counterproductive for carbon mitigation if certification remains inaccurate. Accordingly, we demonstrate that the certifier’s incentives for accuracy can be strengthened by modifying its fee structure so that its revenue is tied to the market value rather than the volume of credits.

Conversational recommender systems powered by generative AI can enhance personalization by facilitating information elicitation through follow-up questions. However, engaging in these conversations imposes a communication cost on users. As platforms with different objectives and monetization models deploy these systems, a central question is: how does the platform’s objective and sellers’ strategic response shape the design of these systems in terms of their elicitation strategy? We develop a parsimonious model of conversational elicitation in which interaction generates noisy preference information and imposes a communication cost borne by the user. A user-welfare-maximizing platform elicits more information when accurate niche matching yields large gains, even when niche users are rare. In contrast, under a conversion objective, for the same setting, the optimal strategy is to immediately recommend the same mainstream option to all users with no or minimal preference elicitation because the incremental conversion benefit from improved matching is bounded, while communication costs are borne by all users. When prices are endogenous and the platform earns a commission, increased elicitation is again optimal because improved screening raises equilibrium prices and platform revenue; however, these price responses can counteract consumer benefits and reduce user welfare. The model also highlights that the optimal elicitation intensity increases with preference heterogeneity, helping explain why conversational systems ask more in highly differentiated categories than in low-heterogeneity ones. We complement the theory with a dataset of long-form product queries that vary in length and informational content. Using our dataset and LLM-based user simulation, we quantify how additional information impacts user decisions and demonstrate that the magnitude of this impact depends on the degree of preference heterogeneity. Additionally, this dataset provides a testbed for measuring the (incremental) value of preference elicitation and may be of independent interest.