Information sharing only helps discovery when pooled posteriors shrink residual error faster than an independent retry can rescue a miss; otherwise pooling can reduce discovery by removing independent attempts, and the beneficial effect depends on equilibrium selection and signal geometry.

Main Finding

Information sharing helps decentralized discovery only when the pooled posterior reduces the residual error faster than the lost independent “rescue” attempts can repair it. Concretely, for a pooled block step s → s+1 with residual errors es = 1 − Cs, sharing strictly improves discovery iff the contraction ratio ρs = es+1 / es satisfies ρs < 1 − q, where q is the per‑agent independent rescue success probability. This identity separates aggregation gain from the independent‑rescue loss, shows that one‑person accuracy is not a sufficient statistic for portfolio discovery, and demonstrates that positive sharing effects can be selection‑dependent in strategic settings.

Key Points

• Incremental‑sharing identity (nonstrategic): with N agents and independent rescue probability q for each nonpooled agent, Gs = 1 − (1 − Cs)(1 − q)^{N−s}, and Gs+1 − Gs = (1 − q)^{N−s−1} [ (1 − q) (1 − Cs) − (1 − Cs+1) ]. Equivalently (when es := 1 − Cs > 0), sharing helps iff es+1 / es < 1 − q.

• General Sharing Frontier (theorem): the exact break‑even condition for an additional sharing step is ρs = 1 − q. Larger q (stronger private rescue) makes pooling harder to justify.

• One‑person accuracy is insufficient: channels with identical single‑agent accuracy q and identical direct private discovery PN can have very different pooled action‑budget profiles VL and different minimum recovery budgets L*. Example: in the registered M=4, N=3 grid, a half‑accurate noisy point and a guaranteed shortlist both have q = 1/2 and PN = 7/8 but require different numbers of pooled actions to recover PN.

• Registry and empirical enumeration: the paper builds a bounded registry of finite synthetic channels (point, shortlist, exclusion, confidence, etc.) and enumerates outcomes exactly (integer/fraction arithmetic). In the frozen registry of 177 scenarios, 126 are compression‑dominated (pooling hurts), 16 aggregation‑dominated (pooling helps), and 35 all‑neutral (equality).

• Strategic two‑agent result (selection‑dependent): with two agents receiving signals of accuracy p = 3/5 from a hidden mixture of common vs. independent sources, sharing strictly improves the selected symmetric posterior‑only identical‑mixing equilibrium (and per‑agent payoff) relative to private anonymous play exactly when the dependence parameter ρ lies in ((5√73 − 17) / 48, 1) ≈ (0.5354, 1). But this is equilibrium‑selection dependent: private play admits constant‑target pure equilibria that attain discovery = 1, and after sharing ownership‑aware strategies can preserve high discovery. A centralized planner selecting top‑L posteriors can also recover or strictly dominate the selected shared outcome.

• Practical diagnostic definitions:

  • Direct private baseline PN: discovery probability when each agent acts on its private signal under a registered rule.
  • Centralized action‑budget profile VL: expected coverage of the top L posteriors after pooling.
  • Recovery budget L*: minimum L such that VL ≥ PN.

Data & Methods

• No human or field data — fully synthetic, model‑generated channels and exact finite computation.
• Registered channel families: noisy point, noisy shortlist, guaranteed shortlist, exclusion, confidence point, and variants; finite M (candidates) and N (agents) grids used (examples M=3..8, N=2..8 in parts of the registry).
• Exact arithmetic enumeration (fractions), checksum‑validated runs, independent reproduction of identities and bounded computations (registry and runs cited as DD‑020, DD‑021, DD‑019 etc.).
• Strategic analysis: finite Bayesian game with hidden mixture (common vs independent source), game equilibria characterized for specific parameter choices (p = 3/5) and dependence parameter ρ.
• Results are analytic + verified exhaustive computations on the registered finite set. Paper is a working paper (not peer‑reviewed).

Implications for AI Economics

• Design of information‑sharing protocols matters beyond top‑1 accuracy. Organizations and platforms should measure pooled coverage curves VL (top‑L posterior mass) and the residual‑error contraction profile, not just single‑agent accuracy or aggregate calibration metrics.
• Tradeoff in decentralized multi‑agent exploration: pooling concentrates evidence (improves a common target) but reduces independent parallelism (removes rescue attempts). The explicit criterion ρs < 1 − q gives a simple test to evaluate whether pooling an extra agent is likely to help.
• Mechanism and authority design: centralized enforcement of diversified top‑L actions can recover private baselines and sometimes dominate decentralized shared equilibria. If a planner cannot enforce diversified actions, decentralized equilibria (and equilibrium selection) can produce very different outcomes — so institutional features (ownership, role assignment, identifiers, recommended coordination protocols) are decisive.
• Strategic/selection fragility: sharing can improve a particular selected equilibrium but not all equilibria — implementation requires attention to incentives and coordination rules. Mechanism designers should not assume sharing automatically improves aggregate discovery without also specifying equilibrium selection mechanisms.
• Relevance to multi‑agent ML systems and platform design:
  • Federated evaluation or shared reporting (e.g., model ensemble voting, shared uncertainty reports) should account for the lost independent exploration (exploration vs exploitation across agents).
  • When designing incentives for decentralized AI agents or human–AI teams (crowdsourced search, multi‑robot exploration), tune q (ability of independent agents to rescue misses) and control pooling to satisfy the contraction criterion.
  • For platform metrics and audits, report both top‑L coverage curves and recovery budgets rather than only top‑1 accuracy to better predict the value of aggregation.
• Limits and caveats: results hold for the finite synthetic channel families and the registered independent‑rescue protocol; they are exact within those assumptions but not a universal information order. The strategic positive result is selection‑dependent; centralized benchmarks may be infeasible in practice. The paper is a working paper and should inform (rather than finalize) policy or product design.

If you want, I can: - compute numerical examples for a specific M, N, channel to demonstrate the ρs check; or - produce a short checklist for practitioners (platform/product designers) to evaluate whether to pool signals in a given setting.