A new embedding theorem collapses dynamic exploration-and-stopping problems into a static convex program priced by a shadow value of information; this yields that convex time preference induces Poisson-style exploration, concave preference produces delayed pure-exploration windows, and the linear case yields Brownian exploration.

Main Finding

The paper gives a complete reduction of dynamic exploration-and-stopping problems (where the decision-maker chooses what information to acquire over time and when to stop) to a static convex program over joint distributions of stopped state and stopping time. It provides an exact, date-by-date characterization (an "embedding theorem") of which state–time distributions are attainable under a single information-rate constraint, derives the dual shadow-price path that prices information over time, and shows that the curvature of time preference determines the qualitative form of optimal exploration (Poisson-like, Brownian-like, or an initial pure-exploration window). Several applications illustrate implications for real options, the speed–accuracy tradeoff, and continuous-time exploration contests.

Key Points

• Setup and admissibility:

  • The controlled process is a martingale µt taking values in a convex compact S; exploration choices determine the martingale law.
  • Information flow is summarized by a convex information measure H and a learning-rate parameter χ. Admissible exploration processes satisfy an expected H-variation bound: E[H(µt′) − H(µt) | Ft] ≤ χ (t′ − t) for t′ > t.
  • The DM also chooses a stopping time τ. The object of interest is the joint law f of (µτ, τ).

• Embedding theorem (Theorem 1):

  • A distribution f over S × T is attainable if and only if 1) Ef[µ] = prior µ0 (martingale/mean constraint), and 2) for every date t, an information-budget inequality holds: ∫{τ≤t} H(µ) f(dµ,dτ) + H(∫{τ>t} µ f(dµ,dτ)) − H(µ0) ≤ χ · E[min{t, τ}].
  • Intuition: at each date t, the information already exploited (mass stopped by t) plus the dispersion still held in reserve (the continuation atom) cannot exceed the budget accumulated up to t.

• Reduction to a static convex program:

  • The set of feasible state–time laws F is convex and characterized by the mean constraint and one concave constraint per date → the exploration-and-stopping control problem reduces to choosing f ∈ F to maximize a linear objective (expected payoff).
  • Because the reduced problem is a convex program with linear objective, strong duality applies.

• Duality and shadow prices:

  • The date-by-date constraints have multipliers that aggregate into a nonincreasing shadow-price path Λ(t), the marginal value of relaxing the information budget at time t.
  • Complementary slackness: Λ declines only when the information constraint binds; where slack, Λ is flat.
  • Optimal f concavifies the (stopping) payoff augmented by the shadow-value; equivalently, mass is placed on the upper tangent to payoff + shadow value.
  • Solving the optimal policy reduces to solving a one-dimensional integral/ODE for Λ(t) in regular cases. The paper gives two algorithms to compute Λ(t).

• Trichotomy by curvature of time preference:

  • Convex adjusted time preference (time-risk-loving) → Poisson exploration: the state moves deterministically but at a random (Poisson) arrival jumps into stopping region.
  • Linear time preference → Brownian-type (knife-edge) exploration.
  • Concave time preference (time-risk-averse) → stopping confined to a finite window; when the window is short, optimal policy begins with pure exploration (belief dispersion with no stopping) followed later by exploitation.
  • This unifies and generalizes prior special-case results (e.g., exponential discounting, binary threshold rules).

• Applications:

  • Real options with active exploration: recovers and extends HJB-style results; working example throughout the paper.
  • Speed–accuracy tradeoff: within an interior regime, optimal policies alternate between pure exploration (belief disperses; no stopping) and full exploitation (jumps and immediate stopping); relates curvature of adjusted discounting to whether decision quality increases or decreases with response time — providing a normative link with empirical latency–accuracy patterns.
  • Competitive exploration contest: when n players privately choose exploration processes and the first to stop wins a quality-dependent prize, all nontrivial symmetric pure-strategy equilibria use Poisson exploration; competition endogenously induces an effectively convex (time-risk-loving) discounting.

Data & Methods

• Nature of contribution: fully theoretical / mathematical. No empirical dataset is used.
• Mathematical objects and assumptions:
  • Continuous- or discrete-time horizon T (contains 0 and at least one other point).
  • State µt: cadlag martingale in compact convex S ⊂ R^n, starting at µ0.
  • Information measure H: strictly convex, continuous on S, extended homogeneously off S; learning-rate χ > 0.
  • Admissible pairs (µt, τ) satisfy the conditional H-variation bound for all t′ > t.
• Core methods:
  • Martingale embedding / realization: characterize attainable joint laws of stopped state and time when both the martingale law and stopping time are chosen subject to the H-variation clock.
  • Convex analysis and linear programming in infinite dimensions: reduce dynamic control to a static convex program over measures, exploit linearity of objective to derive strong duality.
  • Duality and complementary slackness: interpret dual multipliers as time-dependent information shadow prices Λ(t); use concavification arguments (mass placed on upper tangents) to derive structure of optimal f.
  • Construction/proof techniques: optional sampling, convex-order (peacock) arguments (Strassen–Kellerer tradition), explicit realization of martingale paths to attain any feasible f, ODE/integral characterization of Λ(t) in regular cases.
• Examples and specializations:
  • H quadratic → recovers diffusive/quadratic-variation bounded learning (Brownian).
  • H = negative entropy → mutual-information-rate constraint (Poisson/shot-noise learning allowed).
  • The paper includes two algorithms for computing Λ(t) numerically (details in Section 3).
• Formal deliverable: Theorem 1 (characterization of embeddable f), solution of the primal/dual convex program, classification of optimal exploration by time-preference curvature, and worked applications.

Implications for AI Economics

• Conceptual implications
  • Explaining exploration vs deployment tradeoffs: the paper gives a compact, computationally tractable way to derive optimal exploration policies when an AI developer chooses what signals/tests to perform before deploying a model or product, subject to an information-rate constraint (resource, compute, lab time).
  • One-step design: modelers can optimize over distributions of stopping times and final beliefs rather than infinite-dimensional signal/control paths, simplifying comparative statics and mechanism design.
  • Value-of-information path: the dual Λ(t) provides a principled, time-resolved shadow price of information — useful for pricing data acquisition, compute, or experimentation capacity, and for deciding dynamic subsidies or taxes.
• Predictions and testable empirical regularities
  • Curvature of time preference (including effective curvature induced by competition or prizes) predicts the qualitative learning process:
    • Competition or incentives that convexify effective time preference → Poisson-like, front-loaded random stopping (risk-seeking over time).
    • Institutional features that imply concavity (risk-averse over timing) → initial pure-exploration phases with delayed stopping and stopping concentrated in a later window.
  • Speed–accuracy patterns: monotone relationships between response time and decision quality are driven by curvature of adjusted discounting; exponential (linear) discounting implies time-invariant quality, convex implies quality decreases with delay, concave implies quality increases initially — this links lab/field measurements of latency–accuracy curves to implied time-preference shapes and information costs.
• Applications to AI R&D and markets
  • Firm experimentation and launch timing: for AI firms deciding test suites and deployment timing in the presence of competitor entry, the framework predicts when firms will do short, intense (Poisson-like) testing vs long accumulation phases.
  • Contest and prize design: tournament or prize structures that alter effective time-preference curvature can be used to steer firms toward faster (Poisson) or more thorough (pure-exploration) research processes.
  • Mechanism design for information markets: Λ(t) gives a target for designing dynamic pricing of compute or labeled data over time to induce desired exploration profiles.
• Practical computational implication
  • The reduction to a convex program (linear objective) and a one-dimensional ODE/integral for shadow prices suggests implementable numerical approaches for computing optimal exploration policies in applied AI-economic models (e.g., platforms allocating testing budgets, regulators pricing audits, firms planning phased model evaluations).
• Limitations and caveats
  • The theory is abstract and relies on the H-variation bound and martingale representation; real-world frictions (nonmartingale information, strategic disclosure rules, multi-stage contracts, unmodeled costs) may complicate direct application.
  • Behavioral or institutional factors that set time-preference curvature are exogenous in the baseline model (though the contest application shows endogenous convexification).
  • Extensions (some discussed in the paper) allow endogenous capacity or richer constraints, but empirical calibration will require structural choices for H and χ.
• Suggestions for AI-economics researchers
  • Use the embedding reduction to replace complex dynamic signal-design problems with finite-dimensional convex programs when studying deployment timing, model validation, or R&D scheduling under information limits.
  • Estimate the implied curvature of effective time preference from observed latency–accuracy data to infer underlying exploration incentives or information costs.
  • In policy or prize design, target the effective Λ(t) profile (via subsidies, disclosure rules, or prize timing) to steer private exploration toward socially preferred timing/quality tradeoffs.