Firms (or governments) that contract for information will never overpay to spur researchers’ upfront investments but often underpay compared with the social optimum because they must leave information rents; the paper identifies a sharp investment-cost cutoff for inducement and shows better investment opportunities raise that cutoff.

Main Finding

The paper studies a principal contracting a researcher to acquire information when the researcher privately chooses an upfront investment that (stochastically) lowers her future cost of producing information. The contracting problem reduces to a constrained information-design problem. Key results: the principal never over-provides investment but may underprovide it even when investment is socially efficient; there is a cutoff investment cost ϕI such that the principal induces investment iff the sunk cost ϕ ≤ ϕI, and ϕI is weakly below the efficient cutoff ϕFB. The optimal contract screens costs with standard distortions (no distortion at the top; the low-cost type is constrained to acquire no more than first-best information) and can feature novel properties (e.g., optimal experiments with more posteriors than states; sensitivity to the prior when the investment margin binds).

Key Points

• Model setup and timing

  • Principal commits to a methods-based contract (a menu of experiments and payments).
  • Researcher then chooses a sunk, private investment (binary decision) that increases the probability of being a low-cost (efficient) type; type realization occurs afterwards; experiment choice and payment follow.
  • Researcher’s cost for an experiment τ is θ · C(τ), where θ ∈ {θH, θL} is private and C(τ) = E[c(p)] for convex c(·).

• Reduction to information design

  • The principal’s two strategic branches (deterring investment vs. inducing it) are each equivalent to an information-design problem, possibly with a constraint on the experiment cost (a cost-cap or floor).
  • Tools used: convexity of value function v(p), Blackwell ordering of experiments, and constrained maximization of V(τ) − λ C(τ).

• Screening and distortions

  • Cost monotonicity: more efficient (lower θ) types optimally choose experiments with weakly higher cost.
  • Blackwell monotonicity (two-state case): the lower-multiplier optimum is Blackwell-more-informative.
  • No distortion at the top under no-investment; under the induce-investment branch the top is undistorted if the investment cost is not too large.
  • Low type never acquires more than first-best information (by cost), and in two-state case Blackwell-dominated by first-best.

• Investment margin

  • Existence of an investment cutoff ϕI: principal induces investment if and only if ϕ ≤ ϕI.
  • Principal never over-induces investment: ϕI ≤ ϕFB (the efficient cutoff). Hence there is a possible wedge (ϕI, ϕFB) where investment is efficient but not induced.
  • The inefficiency arises from unrecouped information rents (a commitment/timing issue), not from ex-post hold-up: more efficient researchers are never made worse off ex post.

• Additional qualitative features

  • Optimal experiments can have supports with more posteriors than the number of states when cost constraints bind.
  • Without the investment margin, the optimal contract is locally invariant to small changes in the prior; once investment is endogenous, the contract becomes sensitive to the prior.
  • Comparative statics: the cutoff ϕI is higher when the investment opportunity is "better" in the sense that the post-investment type distribution improves in the monotone-likelihood-ratio order (i.e., investment is more effective at shifting mass toward the efficient type).

• Robustness

  • While the core analysis focuses on two cost types for sharpness, the paper extends results to arbitrary finite type sets and shows monotonicity and cutoff comparative statics remain valid.

Data & Methods

• Nature of the work: theoretical, mechanism-design/information-design analysis (no empirical data).
• Formal model:
  • Principal’s decision problem: finite state space Ω, action set A, prior p0, value function v(p) = max_a E[u(a, ω) | p].
  • Researcher chooses any Bayes-plausible experiment τ ∈ Δ(Δ(Ω)); cost of experiment measured by convex c(p) aggregated to C(τ) = E[c(p)].
  • Two private cost types θH < θL; investment raises probability of θH from α to β at sunk cost ϕ.
  • Contract is methods-based: menu (χ : Θ → X, T : Θ → R+) with IC and IR constraints; investment incentive constraint (IC-I) derived from ex ante utilities.
• Analytical methods:
  • Decomposition of the principal’s problem into two programs (induce vs deter investment).
  • Each subproblem reduces to a (possibly constrained) maximization of V(τ) − λ C(τ) over Bayes-plausible τ (an information-design problem).
  • Use of convex analysis, envelope theorem, Blackwell order, revealed-preference arguments to derive monotonicity and distortion properties.
  • Definition of scaled investment cost η = ϕ/[(β − α)(θL − θH)] to interpret constraints as information-budget caps/floors.
  • Derivation of explicit lemmas/propositions (cost monotonicity, Blackwell monotonicity for two states, structure of optimal contracts under each branch, existence and properties of cutoff ϕI).
• Example and extensions:
  • A concrete two-action + safe default example (Section 4) illustrates lumpy information, multi-posterior optima, and prior sensitivity.
  • Section 5 generalizes to finite Θ and shows robustness of main conclusions.

Implications for AI Economics

• Contracts for research and algorithmic development

  • When principals (firms, governments, platforms) buy information or experiments from researchers/teams whose ability depends on upfront, private investments (tools, datasets, compute), standard method-based contracts can fail to induce socially efficient upfront investment because principals must concede information rents.
  • Commitments to method menus that condition payments on the experiment run help the principal relative to weaker contracting technologies; however, even with methods-based contracts the principal may underprovide incentives for costly upfront investments.

• Policy and procurement design

  • Subsidies, matched funding, or co-financing of upfront investments can be necessary to close the gap (ϕI, ϕFB) where investment is efficient but not privately induced under standard contracting.
  • Procurement specifications that credibly reward ex ante investment (e.g., milestone payments tied to investments or partial reimbursement of setup costs) can help internalize the social value of lowering future research costs.

• Platform and governance design for AI labs

  • Platforms that commission benchmarking experiments or model evaluations should recognize that ex ante commitment to methods influences upstream R&D incentives. If principals want labs to invest in better tooling or evaluation pipelines, contracts must account for the information-rent wedge.
  • When a principal can credibly contract on the experimental design (methods), she attains an upper bound on what is achievable under weaker observability; so investing in auditability/contractibility of methods is valuable.

• Strategic implications for researchers and firms

  • Researchers with promising investments that stochastically improve future productivity (cost distribution in MLR sense) are more likely to obtain induced investments from principals (the cutoff ϕI is higher). This favors investments that shift probabilities of high efficiency (rather than merely scale cost reductions).
  • Screening distortions imply lower-type researchers will be assigned less informative (cheaper) experiments than first-best, which can shape organizations’ allocation of tasks and who gets access to costly data/compute.

• General lessons for AI economics research

  • The paper highlights the interaction of adverse selection and moral hazard when agents can change the distribution of their future types via hidden investments — a common feature in R&D and AI development. Modeling such endogenous type distributions via information-design techniques is fruitful and yields concrete comparative statics useful for policy and contract design.
  • The conceptual separation into constrained information-design subproblems offers a tractable toolkit for analyzing other settings where contracting over information interacts with endogenous capabilities (e.g., multi-agent research teams, sequential procurement, or platform-mediated contests).

Overall, the paper formalizes how the timing of commitment and hidden, cost-reducing investments interact to produce an information-rent wedge that leads to systematic underinvestment. For applied AI economics, it signals that careful contract design, potential subsidies for upfront investments, and attention to what aspects of methodology are contractible are crucial to aligning ex ante R&D incentives with ex post value.