arXiv:1703.06367v3 [cs.GT] 14 Aug 2017

Dynamic Information Acquisition
from Multiple Sources∗
Annie Liang†

Xiaosheng Mu‡

Vasilis Syrgkanis§

August 16, 2017

Abstract
Consider a decision-maker who dynamically acquires Gaussian signals that are related by a completely flexible correlation structure. Such a setting describes information acquisition from news sources with correlated biases, as well as aggregation of
complementary information from specialized sources. We study the optimal sequence
of information acquisitions. Generically, myopic signal acquisitions turn out to be optimal at sufficiently late periods, and in classes of informational environments that
we describe, they are optimal from period 1. These results hold independently of the
decision problem and its (endogenous or exogenous) timing. We apply these results to
characterize dynamic information acquisition in games.

Decision-makers often lack access to information that is directly revealing about what
they care about; instead, they aggregate information across many sources, each of which provides relevant information. Consider for example an individual deciding whether to purchase
a home. His realtor provides information about the quality of the house, but this information
may be biased. Online reviews of the realtor provide a second source of information, which
help the decision-maker learn how much the realtor inflates on average. These reviews also
require interpretation, and the decision-maker can cross-check reviews of this realtor against
reviews of other realtors.
This example, already involved, is simplified relative to what information acquisition frequently looks like in practice: individuals routinely acquire and aggregate information across
∗

We would like to thank Yash Deshpande, Drew Fudenberg, Johannes Hörner, Elliot Lipnowski, Michihiro
Kandori, Eric Maskin, Tomasz Strzalecki, Juuso Toikka, Anton Tsoy, and Muhamet Yildiz, as well as seminar
audiences at Columbia University and the Pennsylvania Economic Theory Conference (2017).
†
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania
‡
Department of Economics, Harvard University
§
Microsoft Research

1

varied sources in order to learn about unknowns such as the payoff to a new policy, the value
of an asset, the inflation rate next year. When sources provide correlated information, the
value of information from a given source depends on what kinds of information are available
from other sources, and also on what information has already been acquired. Thus, correlation across sources complicates the problem of optimal dynamic acquisition of information:
a decision-maker contemplating which information source to acquire today should take into
account its impact on the value of information collected in the future.
We model the problem of dynamic acquisition of information from correlated information
sources as follows: there are K unknown states θ1 , . . . , θK ∈ R, which follow a multivariate
Gaussian distribution. A Bayesian decision-maker (DM) has access to K different signals,
each of which is a linear combination of the K unknown states and an independent Gaussian
noise term. Only the state θ1 is payoff-relevant, while other states represent unknown parameters of the signal generating distributions or correlated biases of the information sources.
Information acquisition requires physical time and effort, which we model as a capacity constraint: the DM chooses one signal to observe in each period (see Section 6 for an extension
to B > 1 signals). At a random final period t, the DM faces a decision problem, in which he
takes an action a ∈ A and receives a payoff that depends on his action a, the state θ1 and
possibly the date t. The time of the final period is determined according to a full-support
distribution over periods1 —in the main text, we suppose that this distribution is exogenous,
but later demonstrate an extension to endogenous stopping.
We study the following rules for information acquisition:
(a) myopic: in each period, the DM chooses the signal that (combined with past acquisitions) maximizes the expected payoff he would receive if he were to immediately face
the decision problem.
(b) dynamically optimal : in each period, the DM chooses the signal that maximizes his
overall expected payoff, taking into account the randomness of the decision period and
of future signal realizations.
Additionally, we say that a dynamic information acquisition strategy is totally optimal at
time t if the DM would follow this strategy given knowledge that period t is final.
The main contribution of our paper is to show that in this problem, the myopic and
dynamically optimal solutions are (generically) equivalent after finitely many periods, and
in special cases they are immediately equivalent. Moreover, these solutions achieve total
optimality at every (large) time t. Thus, despite correlation across information sources, the
myopic choice is always (eventually) the best signal to acquire. This equivalence holds for
1

A familiar special case is one in which each period (conditional on being reached) is final with a constant
probability 1 − δ, so that δ is the DM’s discount factor.

2

all payoff functions that the decision-maker might face, and for all possible timings of the
decision period.
Towards these results, we first demonstrate “invariance” of the solution to the decision
problem. Specifically, we show that the myopically optimal strategy, as well as total optimality at period t, can be determined independently of the decision problem. We show
this by first presenting the decision problem of prediction: the DM chooses an action a to
match the state θ1 , receiving payoff −(a − θ1 )2 . For this problem, the myopic decision-maker
deterministically acquires in each period the signal that achieves the greatest decrease in
posterior variance (since his expected payoff is simply the negative of his posterior variance).
We show that the signal that satisfies this criterion Blackwell-dominates the remaining signals, so that it is best not only for the prediction of θ1 , but for all decision problems. A
similar argument obtains for total optimality, and a more complex version of this result for
dynamic optimality is presented in the appendix.
This reduction means that we can suppose without loss of generality that the decision
problem is prediction, and work with deterministic strategies that do not condition on signal
realizations. We provide in Section 5 sufficient conditions under which the myopic and
dynamically optimal signal paths are identical from period 1, and moreover totally optimal
at every period t. In these environments, the myopic decision-maker and the forward-looking
decision-maker acquire the same signals in the same (“best”) order. Intuitively, our sufficient
conditions align the information acquisition goal of the current period with those of all future
periods: under these conditions, the signal that achieves the greatest decrease in posterior
variance in any given period turns out to also allow for maximal reduction of uncertainty in
all subsequent periods.
Equivalence between the myopic and forward-looking solutions does not hold for all
informational environments. In Section 6, we provide a simple counterexample, showing that
the signal that is most informative in the current period may not be part of any pair of signals
that maximizes learning across two periods. This illustrates how complementarity across
signals (due to correlation) can render the myopic choice sub-optimal. Nevertheless, we show
that in general, the information acquisition problem becomes “approximately separable”
over time: the strength of complementarity across different signals vanishes an order of
magnitude faster than the strength of substitution between realizations of the same signal.
With sufficiently many observations, the signals become approximately independent.
This insight allows us to derive the main results of the paper. We show that the myopic
and dynamically optimal signal paths are eventually approximately the same, and approximately totally optimal: the number of signals of each type acquired under the myopic,
dynamically optimal and totally optimal criteria will eventually differ by no more than one
from each another. Moreover, this “eventual gap of one” vanishes in generic informational

3

environments, so that at sufficiently late periods the myopic path is identical to the dynamically optimal path, and is totally optimal.2
As discussed above, all of our results hold independently of discounting and of the decision
problem. Specifically, our sufficient conditions for the myopic signal path to be immediately
optimal are stated only in terms of the informational environment: the DM’s prior belief,
the signals’ linear coefficients and the signal variances. More generally, we demonstrate a
time T for each informational environment, such that the myopic, dynamically optimal and
totally optimal signal paths differ by at most one (in each signal count) after T periods. In
particular, when we consider geometric arrival of the final period with parameter 1 − δ, the
time it takes to achieve approximate equivalence remains bounded as the “discount factor”
δ approaches 1.
In Section 7, we show that our results extend to intertemporal decision problems, where
the DM takes an action at each period and receives an arbitrary state-dependent payoff
depending on all of his actions. This more general framework covers endogenous stopping
problems, which have been extensively studied in the previous literature, and it also allows
for further applications such as dynamic investment and pricing. We note that our results
extend to characterize the optimal sequence of signal choices in these richer environments,
but we do not characterize the optimal sequence of actions (or stopping time).
Additional extensions of the model are presented in Section 8: our results extend to i.i.d.
states drawn each period, to multiple payoff-relevant states whenever the decision problem
is that of prediction, and to the possibility of “free signals” that need not be acquired. We
also discuss a continuous-time analogue of our setup in which at every time, the DM chooses
attention levels (subject to a capacity constraint) that influence the signals he observes, in
the form of diffusion processes. In a detailed appendix, we extend and strengthen many of
our previous results to this setting. For instance, we show that eventual exact equivalence
holds always (instead of generically), and that immediate exact equivalence occurs under a
milder condition of almost independence of prior beliefs.
Sections 9 and 10 discuss interpretations and applications of our main results. For example, the robustness of our results to the decision problem suggests that a decision-maker
who faces uncertainty or ambiguity over the final decision problem can act in a way that
is (in special cases, immediately, and generically, eventually) best across all such problems.
Our setting is thus one in which robust information acquisition is both possible and simple
enough for decision-makers to use in practice. In another interpretation, we consider information acquisition by a sequence of decision-makers—each acquiring (public) information to
2

The sense of generic is the following: for fixed prior belief and linear combinations defining the signals,
eventual equivalence holds for generic signal variances. Likewise, for fixed prior and signal variances, the
result holds for generic linear coefficients.

4

maximize a private objective. Here, our results imply that a social planner cannot improve
on the amount of information aggregated by a long sequence of myopic decision-makers.
Finally, our immediate equivalence results reveal classes of environments in which the
optimal signal path can be characterized independently of the payoff function. This makes it
tractable to analyze dynamic information acquisition not only in single-agent decision problems, but also in strategic settings. Our main application in Section 10 leverages this to extend two results in the literature for information acquisition in games (see Hellwig and Veldkamp
(2009) and Lambert, Ostrovsky and Panov (2017)) by allowing the players to acquire information over time.
Our work most directly builds on a literature about optimal information acquisition
in dynamic environments.3 The key new feature in our problem is the choice between
information sources that are related by a flexible correlation structure. This emphasis
on how a DM chooses between different kinds of information appears in recent work by
Fudenberg, Strack and Strzalecki (2017) (section 3.5), who consider choice between two
Gaussian signals, as well as in Che and Mierendorff (2017) and Mayskaya (2017), who consider choice between two Poisson signals. Relative to these papers, our model is distinguished
by permitting many Gaussian signals that exhibit arbitrary correlation. See Section 11 for
extended discussion of the related literature.

1

Benchmark Case: Learning the Bias of a Source

Consider a decision-maker who wants to learn an unknown state of the world θ ∼ N (0, 1).
This state is realized at t = 0 and persists across all subsequent periods. The DM has access
to two signals: first, he can observe realizations of a biased signal X t = θ + b + ǫtX , where
2
b ∼ N (0, 1) is an unknown persistent bias and ǫtX ∼ N (0, σX
) is an independent noise term.
t
Second, he can observe a signal about the bias, B = b + ǫtB , where ǫtB ∼ N (0, σB2 ) is an
independent noise term. The noise terms ǫtX and ǫtB are i.i.d. over time. To save on notation,
we suppress the time indices on signals throughout, referring to them simply as X and B.
Notice that although signal B does not directly contain any information about the state θ,
it helps the decision-maker to interpret realizations of signal X.
Time t = 1, 2, . . . is discrete, and each period (conditional on being reached) is final with
probability 1 − δ > 0. Below, we refer to δ as the DM’s discount factor. In each period up
to and including the final period, the DM chooses to observe a realization of either signal
X or signal B. At the final period, he provides a prediction a for the unknown state, and
3

For example: Wald (1947), Arrow, Blackwell and Girshick (1949), Moscarini and Smith (2001),
Steiner, Stewart and Matejka (2017), Ke, Shen and Villas-Boas (2016), Fudenberg, Strack and Strzalecki
(2017), Che and Mierendorff (2017), Hebert and Woodford (2017), and Mayskaya (2017).

5

receives the payoff −(a − θ)2 . We assume that past signal realizations are known at the start
of every period, so that in the final period, the DM bases his prediction on all the signals
acquired so far. Which signal should the DM choose to observe in each period?
Let us first consider the choices of the myopic decision-maker, who acquires information
as if he were to face the prediction problem in the current period (corresponding to δ = 0).
When asked to predict the state, the DM’s expected payoff is maximized by predicting the
posterior mean of θ, and his payoff equals the negative of his posterior variance. Because
the DM’s prior and the available signals are Gaussian, his posterior belief about θ is also
Gaussian. Crucially, the DM’s posterior variance can be expressed as the following function
of qX , the number of times he has observed signal X, and qB , the number of times he has
observed signal B:
,

2
σX
σB2
+
.
(1)
f (qX , qB ) := 1 − 1
1+ 2
σB + qB
qX
To derive this posterior variance function, we (without loss) re-order the signal acquisitions
so that the qB realizations of signal B are observed
 first.
 Following these observations, the
qB
DM’s posterior belief about b has variance 1/ 1 + σ2 . Let X be the random variable
B

that is the sample mean of qX realizations of signal X. Then, the DM’s belief over (θ, X),
conditional on the first qB observations of B, is jointly Gaussian with covariance matrix4


1
1


1
1 1 + 1+ qB + q1X
σ2
B

σ2
X

and (1) follows from the standard formula for Gaussian conditional variance.
Given any history of observations summarized by the pair (qX , qB ), the myopic decisionmaker will choose to observe signal X if and only if f (qX + 1, qB ) < f (qX , qB + 1). Using (1),
this is equivalent to the condition that
2
(σB2 + qB )(1 + σB2 + qB )σX
> σB2 qX (1 + qX ).

(2)

Thus, on the myopic signal path, the DM alternates between observing strings of X’s and
strings of B’s. From (2) it can be further shown that over many periods, the number of
X-acquisitions divided by the number of B-acquisitions converges to the ratio σX /σB .5,6
4

Observe that prior to observing any realizations of signal X, the DM believes θ and b to be independent.
In the special case that σX and σB are positive integers, the myopic signal path is eventually periodic,
and the limiting ratio σX /σB is fulfilled with the shortest period possible. For example, if σX = σB , then
after sufficiently many periods, the DM will observe XBXB · · · and not XXBBXXBB. Formally, let d
denote the greatest common divisor of σX and σB . Then the period length is (σX + σB )/d.
6
2
Notice that the smaller the variance σX
is, the less often signal X is observed (asymptotically) relative
to signal B, and vice versa. This is a general feature of the solution.
5

6

The signal acquisition path described above turns out to be not only myopically optimal,
but also dynamically optimal for any discount factor δ. Lemma 1 below will be key to
showing this equivalence, and it says the following: fix an arbitrary period t and a signal
path h = (s1 , s2 , . . . ) ∈ {X, B}∞ , where the sequence follows the myopic strategy in (2)
beginning in period t. Suppose the DM deviates at that period to some other signal and
subsequently follows the myopic strategy. Call the deviation path h̃ = (s̃1 , s̃2 , . . . ). The
lemma below states that the DM’s posterior variance is smaller at every period along signal
path h than along h̃.
Lemma 1. Var(θ | ht ) ≤ Var(θ | h̃t ) holds at every t.
Proof. We suppose st = X, so that the deviation is to s̃t = B; the other case where st = B
follows along identical arguments. Write t for the first period after t at which st = B.
Observe that if (2) holds at some history (qX , qB ), then it continues to hold for all larger qB .

This means that the incentive to choose X at any period t ∈ t, t along signal path h̃ is
greater than the incentive to play X at period t − 1 along the path h. It follows that
(st , . . . , st ) = XXX · · · XB
(s̃t , . . . , s̃t ) = BXX · · · XX

(3)

After t periods, the two signal paths coincide in the number of X signals and B signals that
have been acquired so far. Under myopic behavior, the same signal is acquired along either
path at every period t > t.
Thus it is clear that Var(θ | ht ) = Var(θ | h̃t ) at every t < t and t ≥ t.7 Now consider any
period t with t ≤ t < t. Then,
Var(θ|h̃t ) = Var(θ|ht−1 BX · · · XX)
= Var(θ|ht−1 XX · · · XB)

≥ Var(θ|ht−1 XX · · · XX) = Var(θ | ht ),
using exchangeability of signals in the second equality, and myopic optimality along signal
path h in the final inequality. This completes the argument.
From this lemma and the one-shot deviation principle, it follows that the myopic strategy
is also dynamically optimal. Moreover, since every history is reachable by a sequence of oneshot deviations from the myopic signal path, repeated application of Lemma 1 yields that
the myopic strategy achieves the lowest posterior variance at every time among all possible
strategies. As mentioned previously, we call this stronger property total optimality.
7

The history ht includes all signals acquired up to and including period t.

7

The subsequent section defines a general class of information acquisition problems which
takes this example as a special case. We move beyond this example in two main directions:
first, we allow for more than two sources that are arbitrarily correlated, and second, we allow
for arbitrary payoff functions.

2

General Model

2.1

Setup

The benchmark model considered in Section 1 can be seen as a special case of the following
model. There are K persistent states θ1 , . . . , θK ∼ N (µ0 , V 0 ), where µ0 ∈ RK denotes the
vector of prior means and V 0 is a K × K positive-definite prior covariance matrix.
The DM has access to K different signals,8 each of which is a linear combination of the
unknown states and a Gaussian noise term

ǫti ∼ N 0, σi2 .

Xit = hci , θi + ǫti ,

where each ci = (ci1 , . . . , ciK )′ is a constant K × 1 vector and θ = (θ1 , . . . , θK )′ is the vector
of unknown states.9 Throughout, let C be the matrix of coefficients whose i-th row is c′i .
Time t = 1, 2, . . . is discrete, and in each period the DM chooses one of the K signals to
observe. At some unknown final period t, he will face a decision problem, in which he chooses
an action a from a set A and receives payoff ut (a, θ). Each ut is an arbitrary state-dependent
and time-dependent utility function. The time of decision is governed (exogenously) by an
arbitrary full-support distribution. Special cases include geometric discounting, in which
every period (conditional on being reached) has a constant probability of being final, as well
as Poisson arrival of the final period.
We assume in the main model that there is a single payoff-relevant state.
Assumption 1 (Single Payoff-Relevant State). At every period t,
ut (a, θ1 , θ−1 ) = ut (a, θ1 )

does not depend on θ−1 .

Section 8 discusses the case of multiple payoff-relevant states.
We also assume that the decision problem is non-trivial in the following way.
8

Our analysis directly extends to situations where the number of signals is less than the number of states,
but the case where there are more signals than states presents additional challenges, since the DM need not
observe all the signals in order to learn (the payoff-relevant state θ1 ). The question of how many (and which)
signals are acquired in that case is addressed in a follow-up paper.
9
Here and later, we exclusively use the apostrophe to denote vector or matrix transpose.

8

Assumption 2 (Payoff Sensitivity to Mean). For any period t, any variance σ 2 > 0 and
any action a∗ ∈ A, there exists a positive measure of µ1 for which a∗ does not maximize
E[ut (a, θ1 ) | θ1 ∼ N (µ1 , σ 2 )].
In words, holding fixed the DM’s belief variance, his expected value of θ1 affects the optimal
action to take at time t.
A sufficient condition for Assumption 2 is that for every t and every a∗ , there exists some
other action â such that ut (â, θ1 ) > ut (a∗ , θ1 ) as θ1 → +∞ or as θ1 → −∞. That is, we
require that the two limiting states θ1 → +∞ and θ1 → −∞ disagree about the optimal
action. This is true for all natural applications of the model.
Other than these assumptions we have made, our results are robust to the specifics of
the decision problem. In Section 7, we show that our main results generalize to endogenous
stopping, where the DM chooses an optimal time to stop acquiring information,10 and intertemporal decision problems, in which the DM both acquires a signal and also takes an
action at in each period. For expositional clarity, we work with the simpler payoff function
ut (a, θ) with exogenous stopping in the main model.
Finally, we impose a mild assumption on the informational environment.
Assumption 3 (Full Rank and Exact Identifiability). The matrix C has full rank, and no
proper subset of row vectors of C spans the coordinate vector e′1 .
This assumption requires that no subset of signals fully reveals the payoff-relevant state.
Heuristically, the DM has to observe each signal infinitely often to recover the value of θ1 .11
We discuss below several interpretations for this model of information acquisition.

2.2

Interpretations

Learning from signals with correlated biases. The first interpretation takes the payoffirrelevant states θ2 , . . . , θK to be unknown biases, so that the problem is one of dynamically
learning from biased news sources or biased experts. The coefficient matrix C allows for
general correlation structures across the biases of the sources; thus, the decision-maker can
learn about the bias of one source by observing signal realizations from another. We assume
that the DM knows the correlation structure, so that he can use observations across the
sources to de-bias his beliefs.
10

Whether the time of decision is exogenous or endogenous depends on the specific setting. For example,
a politician acquiring information about a policy may want to best cast her vote at a future meeting, but
her objective could also be to propose an alternative policy whenever she feels sufficiently informed. Under
the assumptions of our model, however, either timing yields (approximately) the same optimal signal path.
11
Equivalently, we assume that the inverse matrix C −1 exists, and its first row consists of non-zero entries.

9

Learning a composite of unknowns. A second interpretation takes the payoff-relevant
state θ1 to be a linear combination of unknowns θ̃1 , . . . , θ̃K about which the decision-maker
can learn independently.12 Such a structure emerges in a variety of settings: for example, the
DM may care about the value of a conglomerate that consists of several companies, where
each company i is valued at θ̃i . The DM wants to learn θ1 := θ̃1 + · · · + θ̃K but has access
to information about each company i’s value θ̃i separately.
As another example, suppose a political group wants to learn the average perspective
in the population towards an issue. There are K demographics, where the proportion of
the population in the k-th demographic is pk . The distribution of perspectives in the k-th
demographic is normal with unknown mean µk and known variance σk2 , so that the average
P
perspective is θ1 := k pk µk . The group can learn about θ1 by sampling individuals from
the population, but it is not feasible to sample individuals directly according to p. The
available polling technologies are modeled as K distributions q (1) , q (2) , . . . , q (K) ∈ ∆K−1 over
the demographics, and individuals can be sampled from any of these distributions.
Precision-accuracy tradeoff. In a final interpretation, suppose that the decision-maker
observes signals from some distribution, but does not know certain parameters governing
this distribution. For example, a scientist needs to measure the acidity of a substance using
a potentially biased instrument. There are two sources of error: measurement error due
to natural (idiosyncratic) fluctuations in the environment, and systematic error due to the
(persistent) bias of the instrument he uses. He can increase the precision of his estimate by
repeatedly measuring the substance, or he can make his estimates more accurate by learning
about the bias of the instrument (for example, by testing the instrument on a substance
with known acidity). The scientist’s information acquisition problem can be abstracted into
the model considered in Section 1.

3
3.1

Notation and Definitions
Strategies, Payoffs, and Beliefs

Let [K] = {1, 2, . . . , K} denote the set of all signals. At the beginning of any period t, the
DM faces a history ht−1 ∈ ([K] × R)t−1 = H t−1 consisting of his previous signal choices as
well as the realized signal values. A strategy is a measurable map from all finite histories
to signals—that is, S : ∪t≥1 H t−1 → [K], where S(ht−1 ) represents the signal choice in
12

This interpretation is in fact equivalent to the model we presented: In one direction, by taking θ̃i = hci , θi,
we can rewrite the payoff-relevant state θ1 as a linear combination of θ̃1 , . . . , θ̃K . In the opposite direction,
starting with a model in which the DM cares about hw, θ̃i, we define θ1 = hw, θ̃i and θi = θ̃i , ∀i > 1. Then
each signal θ̃i + ǫi is a linear combination of the states θ1 , . . . , θK plus noise, returning our main model.

10

period t following history ht−1 .13 Together with the prior belief that θ ∼ N (µ0 , V 0 ), each
strategy induces a joint distribution over possible states and infinite histories: Θ × H ∞ =
R × ([K] × R)∞ .
Since the DM’s prior and available signals are Gaussian, his posterior belief about θ is
also Gaussian at every history. Specifically, if the DM’s belief at the beginning of a period is
θ ∼ N (µ, V ), then a single observation of signal i updates his belief to θ ∼ N (µ̂, V̂ ), where
the posterior covariance matrix
V̂ = φi (V )
is a deterministic function of the prior covariance matrix V (indexed to the signal i). On the
other hand, the posterior mean µ̂ depends on the signal realization, and it is the following
random variable:
µ̂ ∼ N (µ, V − V̂ ).
Note that the distribution of the posterior mean has variance V −V̂ , so its degree of dispersion
exactly equals the amount of uncertainty reduction from prior to posterior beliefs.14
At the final period, the DM’s posterior mean and variance about θ1 are sufficient to
determine his optimal action. Let θ1 ∼ N (µ1, V11 ) be his (marginal) belief about θ1 , where
µ1 is the first coordinate of the vector µ, and V11 is the (1, 1) entry of the matrix V . Let
rt (µ, V ) = rt (µ1 , V11 ) = max E[ut (a, θ1 ) | θ1 ∼ N (µ1 , V11 )]
a∈A

(4)

be the (maximum) expected flow payoff of a DM with arbitrary belief θ ∼ N (µ, V ), conditional on period t being final. For notational simplicity, we write the DM’s belief about θ
given history ht as θ ∼ N (µt , V t ).
We represent the on-path behavior of any strategy S in the following way, tracking the
number of acquired signals of each type up to and including a given period.
Definition 1. Fix a strategy S and any infinite history h realized under S. The division
S
over signals at time t along history h is denoted by the vector q S (t) = (q1S (t), . . . , qK
(t)),
t−1
S
S
S
S
where qi (0) ≡ 0 and qi (t) = qi (t − 1) + 1 (S(h ) = i) . That is, qi (t) counts the number
of periods in which signal i is observed, up to and including period t. Without referencing
the history h, the division at time t is just the random vector q S (t).

3.2

Optimality Criteria

We now define the notions of myopic, dynamically optimal, and totally optimal behavior that
are the focus of this paper.
13
14

Throughout, we assume without loss that the DM uses a pure strategy.
This can be shown using the formula for conditional Gaussian variance. We omit the computation.

11

As usual, call a strategy myopic, or myopically optimal if the DM’s signal choice in
each period maximizes the expected flow payoff in the current period.15 For the dynamically optimal problem, write π(t) for the ex-ante probability that period t is final. Then,
the forward-looking DM faces a (time-inhomogenous) Markov decision problem with value
function given by the following Bellman equation:




U t−1 µt−1 , V t−1 = max E π(t) · rt µt , φi V t−1 + U t µt , φi V t−1
i∈[K]

| µt ∼ N µt−1 , V t−1 − φi V t−1
.

(5)

To interpret, a DM who observes signal i in period t updates his belief about the state
vector to θ ∼ N (µt , φi (V t−1 )). With probability π(t), this is the final period and he receives
rt (µt , φi (V t−1 )) by taking the optimal action. Otherwise he continues to the next period
and expects to receive U t (µt , φi (V t−1 )) based on the updated belief. This value function
U t−1 (µt−1 , V t−1 ) is the total payoff to be gained following history ht−1 from the ex-ante
perspective; it is not discounted.
We note that due to the assumption of a single payoff-relevant state, the utility function
U t−1 (µt−1 , V t−1 ) depends on µt−1
and V t−1 , but not on the expected value of the remaining
1
states.16 Thus, we will (without loss) restrict attention to Markovian strategies that depend
t−1
only on the simpler tuple (t, µt−1
) rather than (t, µt−1 , V t−1 ). We will further say that
1 ,V
a Markovian strategy is deterministic if it does not condition on signal realizations. Such a
strategy depends only on the calendar time t and the current covariance matrix V t−1 . If a
Markovian strategy also conditions on the expected value of θ1 , it is called stochastic.
Whether it be deterministic or stochastic, a Markovian strategy S is dynamically optimal
if at every history ht−1 with associated belief θ ∼ N (µt−1, V t−1 ), the signal choice S(ht−1 )
is a maximizer on the RHS of the Bellman equation (5). This definition requires optimality
even at off-path histories.17
Finally, we define a property of strategies that we will refer to as total optimality.
Definition 2. A strategy is totally optimal at time t if it maximizes E [rt (µt , V t )], the
expected flow payoff in period t, among all strategies. The expectation is taken over the
15

That is, S is myopic if at every history ht−1 , the signal choice S(ht−1 ) is the signal i that maximizes the
expected flow payoff E[rt (µt , φi (V t−1 )] given the posterior belief µt ∼ N (µt−1 , V t−1 − φi (V t−1 )). Note that
by this definition, there can be multiple myopic strategies.
16
Knowing µt−1
and V t−1 is sufficient to determine the evolution of µt1 and V t . It is however not enough
1
for the DM to remember only the variance of θ1 , because processing future signals requires knowing how θ1
is correlated with the other states.
17
A slightly weaker definition of dynamic optimality is that S simply maximizes the ex-ante payoff
0 0
U (µ , V 0 ). Because we are concerned in this paper with the optimality of the myopic strategy, we will
work with the stronger definition that imposes optimality at all histories.

12

distribution of posterior beliefs θ ∼ N (µt, V t ) at the end of period t, induced by the strategy.18
Intuitively, a strategy achieves total optimality at time t if a DM who knows period t to
be final will follow the strategy. This can be understood as a limiting case of dynamic
optimality, where the distribution over periods is degenerate.

4

Invariance to the Decision Problem

Our first set of results delivers a key simplification of the analysis.
Consider the special case of the main model in which the DM’s expected flow payoff is
rt (µ, V ) = −V11 ,
where V11 is the posterior variance about θ1 . This would arise, for example, if the decision
problem were prediction of θ1 and the payoff were quadratic loss, as in Section 1.19
In this case, because signal realizations do not affect the posterior covariance matrix, we
can restrict attention to deterministic strategies with the property that S(ht−1 ) only depends
on t and V t−1 .
We will show now that the development of myopic optimality and total optimality for the
prediction problem is without loss: any myopic strategy in the prediction problem is myopic
in any decision problem, and a strategy is totally optimal for a general decision problem if
and only if it is totally optimal for prediction.
t−1
Consider a DM with belief θ1 ∼ N (µt−1
]11 ) at the beginning of period t. His belief
1 , [V
about θ1 after a single observation of signal i becomes θ1 ∼ N (µt1, [V t ]11 ). The posterior
variance [V t ]11 = [φi (V t−1 )]11 is deterministic, and the posterior mean follows the distribution
t−1
µt1 ∼ N (µt−1
]11 − [V t ]11 ).
1 , [V

We observe that as the posterior variance [V t ]11 decreases, this distribution of posterior means
becomes less concentrated; by normality, this implies that the distribution of posterior beliefs
increases in the Blackwell order (Blackwell (1951)). Thus, if acquisition of signal i induces a
lower posterior variance than acquisition of signal j, then signal i Blackwell-dominates signal
j. Since any myopic strategy for the prediction problem minimizes [V t ]11 , it also maximizes
the immediate flow payoff in any decision problem.20
18

The more general notion of total optimality following a given history is defined and used in the appendix.
To recall, the DM chooses a ∈ R and receives u(a, θ1 ) = −(a − θ1 )2 . Then he optimally chooses a to be
the posterior mean of θ1 , and his expected payoff equals the negative of his posterior variance about θ1 .
20
Intuitively, a myopic DM concerned about immediate payoffs only seeks to reduce the uncertainty about
θ1 , but does not care how correlated θ1 may be with the other states (which helps future updating and
decisions). In his static signal acquisition problem, each signal can be viewed as θ1 plus an independent
noise term (see Appendix B for details). It then follows that smaller posterior variance means less noise in
the signal and thus a more informative signal in the Blackwell ordering.
19

13

We record this result in the following lemma, with a formal proof in Appendix B:21
Lemma 2. Fix an arbitrary decision problem satisfying Assumption 2. A strategy is myopic
if and only if it is myopic for prediction.
Henceforth, when working with myopic strategies, we can restrict attention to deterministic
strategies that simply minimize the variance about θ1 at each step.
The same equivalence turns out to hold for total optimality (see Definition 2). To see
this, observe that our previous argument regarding Blackwell ordering implies that given a
fixed number of observations k, the optimal set of k signals is independent of the decision
problem. While our DM faces sequential acquisition and may condition later signal choices
on earlier signal realizations, this additional flexibility turns out to not be advantageous
because the variance at the final period does not depend on realized signal values. Thus, for
a fixed final period, the optimal signal sequence is also invariant to the decision problem.
Our next lemma formalizes this, and states that a strategy is totally optimal at time t if
and only if with probability 1, there is no way to reduce posterior variance by redistributing
the total number of past observations across different signals. To state the lemma, we
introduce a posterior variance function that will be frequently referred to in this paper:
Definition 3. Given prior covariance matrix V 0 , matrix of linear coefficients C and signal
variances (σi2 )K
i=1 . For non-negative integer values q1 , . . . , qK , the function f (q1 , . . . , qK ) is
the DM’s posterior variance about θ1 after qi observations of each signal i (see Appendix A
for details).
Lemma 3. Fix an arbitrary decision problem satisfying Assumption 2. A strategy S is
totally optimal at time t if and only if the induced (random) division q S (t) (see Definition
1) satisfies
q S (t) ∈
argminP
f (q1 , . . . , qK ).
(q1 ,...,qK ):qi ∈Z+ ,

i qi =t

with probability 1.22
Any division (q1 , . . . , qK ) in the argmin above is called a totally optimal division at time t.
Using Lemma 2 and 3, we can deduce that for the informational environment discussed in
Section 1, any myopic strategy achieves total optimality and dynamic optimality for arbitrary
time-dependent payoff functions. We show in the following section that this result extends
to several classes of informational environments.
21

Below, Assumption 2 ensures that the relation between posterior variance and Blackwell ordering is
strict: a signal with strictly less noise leads to strictly higher flow payoff.
22
Our proof in Appendix B shows, somewhat surprisingly, that the DM’s expected flow payoff in period
t is unchanged even if his signal choices lead to different divisions along different histories, so long as each
realized division is totally optimal.

14

Outside of such environments, the dynamically optimal strategy for general decision
problems does not admit a similar reduction (to the prediction problem). For example,
compare two signal sequences X1 X2 and X3 X4 where X1 is myopically better than X3 but
the pair X3 X4 yields lower posterior variance than X1 X2 . Which sequence gives rise to
higher overall expected payoff will in general depend on the DM’s decision problem and on
discounting. This difficulty makes it harder to establish the equivalence between dynamic
and myopic (or total) optimality. We will nevertheless show in Section 6 that the dynamically
optimal strategies are eventually deterministic and myopic (in generic environments).

5

Sufficient Conditions for Immediate Equivalence

In Section 1, we saw an environment in which the myopic, dynamically optimal, and totally
optimal strategies agree from period 1. Here we generalize this equivalence to several classes
of environments. One sufficient condition is that the signals are separable in the following
sense:
Definition 4. The informational environment (V 0 , C, {σi2}) is separable if there exist convex
functions g1 , . . . , gK and a strictly increasing function F such that the posterior variance
function satisfies
f (q1 , . . . , qK ) = F (g1(q1 ) + · · · + gK (qK )).
Intuitively, separability ensures that observing signal i does not change the relative value
of other signals, but strictly decreases the marginal value of signal i relative to every other
signal.23 The benchmark case in Section 1 falls into this class of environments, as does its
generalization below:
Example 1. There is a single payoff-relevant state θ ∼ N (0, v0 ). The DM has access to
observations of X = θ + b1 + · · · + bK−1 + ǫX , where each bi is a persistent bias independently
2
drawn from N (0, vi ), and ǫX ∼ N (0, σX
) is a noise term i.i.d. over time. Additionally, he
can learn about each bias bi by observing Bi = bi + ǫi , where ǫi ∼ N (0, σi2). Then, the DM’s
posterior variance about θ is given by
f (q1 , . . . , qK−1, qX ) = v0 −

v02

v0 +

which is indeed separable.

2
σX
qX

+

PK−1 
i=1

vi −

vi2
vi +σi2 /qi



Another class of separable environments occurs when the signals provide orthogonal (thus
independent) information:
23

While we can write f in terms of V 0 , C and {σi2 }, Definition 4 is strictly speaking not a condition on
the primitives.

15

Example 2. Suppose the DM’s prior is standard Gaussian (V 0 = IK ), and the row vectors
of C are orthogonal to one another. Then we have
"
−1 #

 2
2
σ
σ
1
C
,..., K
f (q1 , . . . , qK ) = IK − C ′ CC ′ + diag
q1
qK
11
−1

 2
σ2
σ
is also a
By orthogonality, CC ′ is a diagonal matrix. Thus CC ′ + diag q11 , . . . , qKK
diagonal matrix, and it is separable in q1 , . . . , qK .
By the same argument as in Section 1, in a separable environment, any strategy that is
myopic for prediction is totally optimal for prediction at every time. The reduction lemmata
in Section 4 enable us to extend the equivalence to arbitrary decision problems.24
Proposition 1. Suppose the informational environment is separable. Then any myopic
strategy is totally optimal at every time, and it is dynamically optimal. Conversely, any
dynamically optimal strategy is myopic and totally optimal at every time.
An alternative sufficient condition for immediate equivalence (among the different optimality criteria) is that the posterior variance about θ1 depends on each signal count in a
symmetric way:
Definition 5. The informational environment (V 0 , C, {σi2 }) is symmetric if the posterior
variance function f (q1 , . . . , qK ) is symmetric in its arguments.
An example of a symmetric environment is the following.
Example 3. There are three states θ1 , θ2 , θ3 independently drawn from N (0, 1) and three
signals X1 = θ2 + θ3 + ǫ1 , X2 = θ1 + θ3 + ǫ2 and X3 = θ1 + θ2 + ǫ3 . The noise terms ǫ1 , ǫ2 , ǫ3
have the same variance. Suppose the DM cares about θ1 + θ2 + θ3 , then the signals contribute
symmetrically to the posterior variance about this payoff-relevant state.
In a symmetric environment, the natural strategy of observing the signal that has been
least observed turns out to be myopically, dynamically and totally optimal.25 We have the
following result:
Proposition 2. Suppose the informational environment is symmetric. Then any myopic
strategy is totally optimal at every time and dynamically optimal. Any dynamically optimal
strategy is myopic and totally optimal at every time.
Finally, we also show that for the case of two signals (K = 2), even without the separability or symmetry assumption, myopic information acquisition achieves optimality whenever
the vectors defining the signals are not too close to collinear—see Appendix I for details.
24

To derive the equivalence with dynamic optimality, we also use the observation that if a strategy S
maximizes the flow payoff at every period, then it also maximizes the ex-ante expected payoff.
25
Starting from the null history, the (on-path) signal acquisitions divide into blocks of K, each of which
consists of exactly one observation of each signal, in any order.

16

6

Eventual Equivalence

The previous section provided conditions under which the myopic and dynamically optimal signal paths coincide at every period, and are moreover totally optimal for every t.
Why might these equivalences fail? We provide a simple example below, building on the
benchmark case considered in Section 1.
Example 4. There are three states θ, b1 , b2 independently drawn from N (0, 1), where only θ
is payoff-relevant. The DM chooses from the three signals X = θ + b1 + ǫX , B1 = b1 + b2 + ǫ1 ,
and B2 = b2 + ǫ2 , where all signal variances are equal to 1. Given a history (qX , q1 , q2 ), the
DM’s posterior variance about θ is
f (qX , q1 , q2 ) = 1 −

1
2+

1
qX

−

1

.

(6)

1
1+ q1 + 1+q
1
2

The derivation is similar to (1) in Section 1, so we omit it. From this formula, it can be
shown that the myopic decision-maker’s initial signal path is XXB1 XX, which achieves the
(unique) totally optimal division (4, 1, 0) at period 5. However, the myopic DM’s next signal
acquisition is B1 , so that the myopic division becomes (4, 2, 0), while the unique totally
optimal division at period 6 is (3, 2, 1), as f (3, 2, 1) < f (4, 2, 0).26
The myopic strategy fails to achieve total optimality at t = 6 for the following reason:
after the initial history XXB1 X, the acquisition of signal X is myopically better than either
B1 or B2 . But looking forward two periods, the pair of signals B1 B2 is better than any pair
that includes signal X (in particular the myopic choices XB1 ).
From this example, we see how complementarities between pairs of signals (such as between B1 and B2 above) can render the myopic choices sub-optimal.27 Nonetheless, we will
show that the strength of such complementarities vanishes at late time periods, so that the
myopic signal path eventually achieves approximate dynamic and total optimality. Moreover,
in generic environments the myopic path is eventually exactly optimal.
Below, we use m(t) = (m1 (t), . . . , mk (t)) to denote the division over signals under a
deterministic myopic strategy, d(t) to denote the (random) division under an arbitrary dynamically optimal strategy, and finally n(t) to denote a totally optimal division at time t,
according to the definition in Lemma 3.28 Thus mi (t) (resp. di (t), ni (t)) counts the number
26

We point out that in the sixth period, the myopic DM is in fact indifferent between observing B1 or B2 ;
if he observes B2 instead, his division would be (4, 1, 1), which is also not totally optimal.
27
However, if signals are fully divisible, then even a myopic DM can take advantage of the complementarity
between B1 and B2 by devoting equal attention to them. In continuous time, the myopic strategy in Example
4 is in fact optimal from the beginning. See Appendix M for details.
28
Although non-deterministic myopic strategies may exist due to tie-breaking, any realized division over

17

of times a myopic (resp. forward-looking, totally optimal) DM observes signal i in the first
t periods. Our results will be stated in terms of these signal counts.
Our first result in this section says that the differences (in terms of signal counts) across
the three optimality criteria become minimal after sufficiently many periods. Specifically, at
every late period t, the number of times any signal has been observed under myopic, dynamic
and total optimality can differ by at most 1.
Before stating the result, we impose a weak technical condition. Fix any proper subset of
signals I. We require that some signal j outside of I strictly decreases posterior variance about
θ1 whenever each signal in I has been observed sufficiently many times. This assumption
guarantees that the dynamically optimal strategy observes each signal infinitely often along
every history of signal realizations. We comment that the assumption is satisfied for generic
informational environments29 ; additionally, it is not needed for the equivalence between
myopic and total optimality, or in the continuous-time variant of our model (Appendix M).
Assumption 4 (Strict Variance Decrease). For any proper subset of signals I, there exists
j∈
/ I and ǫ > 0 such that: for any division (q1 , . . . , qK ) with qj = 0 and qi sufficiently large
(∀i ∈ I), it holds that f (qj + 1, q−j ) < f (qj , q−j ) − ǫ.
Our eventual (approximate) equivalence result is now stated.
Theorem 1 (Eventual Gap of One). Suppose the informational environment (V 0 , C, {σi2})
satisfies Assumption 3 and 4. There exists a large finite T such that the following holds: for
any decision problem and any time t ≥ T ,30
(a) |mi (t) − ni (t)| ≤ 1, ∀i.
(b) |di (t) − ni (t)| ≤ 1, ∀i for every realized d(t).
(c) |di (t) − mi (t)| ≤ 1, ∀i for every realized d(t).
We provide a brief intuition for this result. For each k, define a new state θ̃k = hck , θi, so
that the signal Xk is simply θ̃k plus independent Gaussian noise. The payoff-relevant state θ1
can be rewritten as a linear combination of the linearly transformed states θ̃1 , . . . , θ̃K . Our
signals under such strategies also occurs under a deterministic strategy. Since our results below are stated
in terms of these divisions, they apply to all myopic strategies, deterministic or stochastic.
29
Zero marginal values occur only if ∂j f (q1 , . . . , qK ) = 0. Fixing V 0 and C, such an equation (for any
q1 , . . . , qK ) induces a non-trivial polynomial relation among the signal variances (σi2 ). Since the number of
possible tuples (q1 , . . . , qK ) is countable, zero marginal values only happen in non-generic situations.
30
We remark that the results stated here only compare the on-path behavior of myopic, dynamically
optimal and totally optimal strategies. However, a slight modification of our proof shows that for some large
T , following any given history, the myopic, dynamically optimal and totally optimal divisions differ by at
most 1 after T periods (a similar statement holds for Theorem 2 below). We omit the details.

18

key observation is that the DM’s posterior belief over these transformed states (θ̃1 , . . . , θ̃K )
becomes almost independent after sufficiently many observations of each signal. Formally, the
posterior covariance between any pair of transformed states is small relative to the posterior
variance about either state, and the ratio converges to zero as the number of observations
grows to infinity. We note that this property of “de-correlation” is a consequence of the
Bayesian Central Limit Theorem, and it extends to states and signals that need not be
normally-distributed.31
Based on the insight that different signals are approximately independent from each other,
we show that any complementarity or substitution effect across the signals is eventually weak.
The property of “de-correlation” alone is not sufficient to drive this latter conclusion. While
de-correlation gives the magnitude of the posterior covariance matrix, the complementarity
or substitution between two signals is essentially a function of how the posterior covariance
matrix varies with the acquisition of extra signals (i.e. its derivatives and second derivatives).
To this end, we develop a key technical lemma (Lemma 5 in Appendix A) regarding the
second derivatives of the posterior covariance matrix. This lemma says that the effect of
observing a signal on the marginal value of other signals is eventually second-order to its
effect on the marginal value of (further realizations of) the same signal.32 Thus, observing
a particular signal may change the ordering of other signals, but the cardinal extent of
such change is limited. We conclude that the dynamic information acquisition problem is
“near-separable” at sufficiently late periods, and it is approximately without loss to treat
the dynamic problem as a series of static problems, for which the myopic solution is optimal.
See Appendix E for the formal proof.
One may wonder whether the “gap of one” stated in the theorem can be dropped. Indeed,
in generic informational environments, it turns out that any myopic strategy eventually
coincides (exactly) with a dynamically optimal strategy and also achieves total optimality
at every period (see Appendix G for the proof):33
Theorem 2 (Generic Eventual Equivalence). Fix prior covariance matrix V 0 and linear
coefficients C. For generic signal variances {σi2 }K
i=1 (with Lebesgue measure 1), there exists
T ∗ such that m(t) = d(t) = n(t) at every time t ≥ T ∗ , for any decision problem.
In fact, the “generic” qualifier can be dropped when K = 2 (see Appendix I), but it cannot
when K > 2: in Appendix J, we show that in the previous Example 4, all myopic strategies
31

While de-correlation suggests the possibility for extending our eventual equivalence results beyond Gaussian information, our proof of Theorem 1 relies on normality to prove the stronger property of eventual
“near-separability,” as discussed in the next paragraph.
32
This is true along any signal path in which the signal counts go to infinity proportionally, which we
endogenously justify in Appendix D.
33
The key new technical tool is use of results on the approximation of real numbers by rationals; see
Appendix G for details.

19

fail to achieve total optimality infinitely often. We also provide another example in which the
myopic division differs from the dynamically optimal division infinitely often, for arbitrarily
low discounting. These examples suggest that our results are best possible.34
Finally, if we allow the DM to observe B signals (including repetitions) each period, then
with sufficiently large B, we return the immediate equivalence results.
Theorem 3. Fix any informational environment satisfying Assumption 3, and suppose that
the DM acquires B signals each period. Then, if B is sufficiently large, any myopic strategy
achieves total optimality at every time and is dynamically optimal.
Intuitively, this is because the myopic strategy with B observations per period is equivalent to a strategy that plans B periods forward in our main model. The question of how large
B needs to be for immediate equivalence to obtain is related to the question of how large
the period T needs to be for the signal paths to be approximately equivalent (in Theorem
1). We provide now a bound for this T .

6.1

Time to Eventual Equivalence

Using the linear transformation described above, we may consider states θ̃1 , θ̃2 , . . . , θ̃K ∼
N (µ, V ) such that the payoff-relevant state is θ∗ = hw, θ̃i for some fixed vector w, and the
available signals are Xit = θ̃i + ǫti with ǫti standard Gaussian noises independent from each
other and over time. The primitives of this transformed informational environment are the
weight vector w and the prior covariance matrix V . We are interested in how large the
period T has to be for Theorem 1 to apply. The following upper bound assumes that w is
the vector of all 1’s, although the method of proof easily generalizes to arbitrary w:
Theorem 4. Let S denote the operator norm of the matrix V −1 .35 Suppose w = (1, . . . , 1)′ ,
then |mi (t) − ni (t)| ≤ 1 whenever t ≥ 24(S + 1)K 2 .36
We can derive similar bounds for the dynamically optimal division by incorporating Assumption 4. The statement is somewhat cumbersome, so we will not give the details here.
34

Nonetheless, these counterexamples (to eventual exact equivalence) rely on the discreteness of our main
model. The eventual gap of one vanishes in the continuous-timen limit, as we show in Appendix
o M.

K
The operator norm of a matrix M is defined kM kop = sup kMvk
with v 6= 0 .
kvk : v ∈ R
36
3
Our bound is of order K for almost all covariance matrices V , for the following reason: the positivedefinite matrix V can be written as U · U ′ for some matrix U . Imagine that the entries of U are drawn
i.i.d. from a fixed distribution with finite mean and variance. Then a result in random matrix theory states
√
that kU −1 kop has order K with probability approaching 1 as K → ∞ (Rudelson and Vershynin (2008),
Tao and Vu (2010)). Thus kV −1 kop has order at most K.
35

20

Intuitively, the time to (approximate) equivalence depends on how long it takes for signals
to “de-correlate,” at which point potential complementarities across signals are weak. How
long this takes depends on two primitives:
First, it is increasing in the number of signals K. Intuitively, the greater the number of
signals K, the more pairs of signals there are that need to de-correlate; this increases the
time to equivalence. Second, the bound is increasing in the norm of V −1 . To interpret this,
suppose first that we adjust the precision of the DM’s prior but fix the degree of correlation,
for example by scaling V by a factor less than 1. Then, the norm of V −1 increases, and
equivalence between myopic and total optimality is attained later. Intuitively, holding fixed
the correlation among the states, a more precise prior can be understood as “re-scaling” the
state space by shrinking all states towards zero. Since signal noise is not correspondingly
rescaled, each signal now reveals less about the state, and de-correlation takes longer.
In contrast, suppose we hold precision fixed and increase the degree of correlation. This
would correspond to fixing the diagonal entries of V and increasing the off-diagonal entries,
so that the variances about individual states are unchanged but their covariances become
larger in magnitude. Then, the entire matrix V becomes closer to being singular, the norm
of V −1 increases and the time to equivalence is longer. Intuitively, greater correlation in the
prior requires more time to de-correlate.
With sufficiently many observations, the DM’s belief simultaneously becomes more precise and less correlated, and these two effects are confounded in our previous result that
equivalence “eventually” occurs. It is tempting to think that eventual equivalence follows
from the (eventual) precision of the DM’s belief. However, our discussion above shows that
the important feature is not precision but correlation: having an arbitrarily precise belief
does not guarantee (immediate) equivalence; on the contrary, equivalence takes longer under
a precise correlated prior belief.37

7

Endogenous Stopping and Intertemporal Decisions

While we have assumed an exogenous (random) final period so far, our results extend to
endogenous stopping problems in which the DM decides the final period t and takes an
action a ∈ A. His payoff is given by an arbitrary time-dependent payoff function ut (a, θ1 ),
which takes into account discounting and/or a constant cost of signals.38
37

It is not completely rigorous to base this conclusion on the “upper bound” we derive for the time to
equivalence. Nonetheless, the intuition that a more precise prior implies a longer time to de-correlate does
hold. There is an exact relationship in the continuous-time limit of our model (see Appendix M): scaling
(each entry of) the prior covariance matrix V by half means the time at which equivalence occurs doubles.
38
Constant waiting cost per unit of time appears in the work of Fudenberg, Strack and Strzalecki
(2017) and Che and Mierendorff (2017). It is different from the approaches taken in (for example)

21

In fact, we will consider a more general class of intertemporal decision problems described
as follows: in each period t, the DM observes one of the K signals and then chooses an
action at ; his total payoff from these actions is U(a1 , a2 , . . . ; θ1 ), which can exhibit arbitrary
intertemporal dependence.39 We provide in Appendix L an example that takes this more
general form: a DM chooses how to divide resources between investment in an asset with
known return and an asset with unknown return; in each period, he simultaneously makes
investment decisions, and also acquires information about the unknown return.
We show that as long as the DM’s action choices do not affect how much he can learn
about the states,40 myopic information acquisition remains (approximately) optimal. Formally, we prove in Appendix L the following result:
Theorem 5. Suppose myopic information acquisition achieves total optimality at every time
for the prediction problem. Then, for any intertemporal decision problem in which the DM
takes an action at at the end of each period t and receives overall payoff U(a1 , a2 , . . . ; θ1 ),
there is a dynamically optimal strategy in which the DM acquires information myopically.
Thus, whenever the informational environment satisfies the sufficient conditions in Section
5, the DM cannot do better than acquiring information myopically even if his actions may
have intertemporal consequences.41 This property that the optimal signal path is independent from the optimal sequence of actions makes it possible to characterize the latter as if
information arrives exogenously; in particular, the optimal stopping time can be solved for
assuming myopically chosen signals until the stopping time.42 We should however mention
the distinction between “myopic signal choice” and “myopic action choice.” While Theorem 5
suggests that myopic information acquisition is optimal under fairly permissive assumptions,
myopic actions often do poorly under the forward-looking criterion.
Our proof of Theorem 5 is based on a dynamic Blackwell-dominance lemma (for comparing sequences of normal signals) that generalizes the static reduction results in Section 4.
Loosely speaking, this lemma states that a DM can “imitate” the action choice, and achieve
the same payoff, as any DM whose posterior variance about θ1 is larger at every period. We
note that the direct extension of Blackwell-dominance to the dynamic setting says that a
Moscarini and Smith (2001) and Hebert and Woodford (2017), where the cost of acquiring different signals
varies depending on properties of that signal (e.g. precision or entropy reduction).
39
This framework embeds endogenous stopping if we take each at to specify both the stopping decision
and the action to be taken when stopped.
40
This assumption distinguishes our model from Multi-armed Bandit problems, see Section 11 for detailed
discussion of this connection.
41
Our eventual equivalence results can be similarly generalized to this setting. We omit the details.
42
In a stylized two-state model, Fudenberg, Strack and Strzalecki (2017) analyze the optimal stopping
behavior under exogenous information and proceed to verify its optimality under endogenously chosen information. We discuss this connection in Section 8, when we introduce our model in continuous time.

22

DM with better information in every period obtains higher payoff. In contrast, our lemma is
based on the weaker assumption that the DM has better cumulative information up to every
period.43 This turns out to be technically non-trivial, see Appendix L for further discussion.

8

Other Extensions of the Model

Multiple Payoff-Relevant States. In the main model, we assumed that the decisionmaker’s payoff function depends on a unidimensional state θ1 . When the DM cares about
multiple states at once, our results extend for the specific problem of prediction: the DM
predicts state vector θ̂ ∈ RK and receives payoff −(θ̂ − θ)′ W(θ̂ − θ), where W is an arbitrary
positive semi-definite matrix. Our equivalence results and their proofs apply without change
to this setting.44 However, extension to general decision problems fails because there does
not exist a complete Blackwell ordering over signals about multi-dimensional states.
Non-Persistent i.i.d. States. So far we have considered persistent states θ1 , . . . , θK . All
t
of our results extend if new states θ1t , . . . , θK
are independently drawn each period according
P
K
t
t
t
to θk = θk + γk , and the signals are Xi = i=1 cik θk + ǫti as before. The noise terms γkt and
ǫti are independent from one another. We assume that the DM receives ut (a, θ1t ) in the final
period t, which depends on the payoff-relevant state at that time. To see that our results
extend, simply notice that the DM’s posterior variance about θ1t is the sum of his posterior
variance about θ1 and the variance of γ1t . Because the latter cannot be controlled by the
DM, his optimal information acquisition strategy is unchanged. We leave to future work the
question of whether (and when) the myopic strategy is optimal under richer state dynamics
(e.g. AR processes).
Free Signals. We have modeled limited information acquisition capacity by restricting the
DM to observe only one signal per period. This restriction can be easily relaxed to allow
multiple observations each period, see Theorem 3 above. We mention that our model can be
further generalized to include “free signals”; that is, suppose a subset of signals is observed in
each period, and the DM additionally chooses one signal (outside of this subset) to observe.
43

The condition of Theorem 5 does not imply that the myopic strategy achieves the largest variance
reduction in any given period (other than the first). It only ensures that the cumulative variance reduction
is largest under the myopic strategy.
44
For a diagonal matrix W, the DM’s objective function f is a weighted sum of posterior variances about
multiple states. Generalizing Lemma 5 in Appendix A, we can show that any such f exhibits “eventual
near-separability,” which implies our eventual equivalence results. Even if W is not diagonal, by the spectral
theorem, there exists an orthonormal matrix J and a diagonal matrix X such that W = JXJ′ . Then the
objective function is a weighted sum of posterior variances about multiple, linearly-transformed states. Our
proofs still carry through as long as we modify Assumption 3 to require that each of these “transformed
payoff-relevant states” is exactly identified by the signals.

23

Our results and their proofs remain valid.45
Continuous Time. In Appendix M, we provide a detailed analysis of a continuous-time
version of our problem. We assume that the DM has one unit of attention in total at
every point in time. He chooses attention levels β1 (t), . . . , βK (t) (subject to βi (t) ≥ 0 and
P
46
i βi (t) ≤ 1), which influence the diffusion processes X1 , . . . , XK that he observes:
p
dXit = βi (t) · θ̃i dt + βi (t)dBit ,

where each Bi is an independent standard Brownian motion, and θ̃i = hci , θi is a “linearly
transformed state.” The decision problem is the same as in discrete time.47
We note that if K = 2, the DM has an independent symmetric prior about the states
θ̃1 , θ̃2 and if he cares about the difference θ̃1 − θ̃2 , then this model becomes the one considered
by Fudenberg, Strack and Strzalecki (2017) (section 3.5), who show it is optimal (on-path)
to pay equal attention to both signals at every time.48 This result is a special case of our
Theorem 8 in Appendix M, which generalizes to arbitrary prior beliefs and characterizes the
optimal strategy off-path.49 Our analysis also reveals that with two signals in general, the
optimal attention levels are eventually constant.
For K > 2, we extend and strengthen many of our previous results to this continuous-time
setting. Specifically, we show that eventual exact equivalence obtains in all informational
environments satisfying identifiability, thus improving upon the conclusion of Theorem 1
and 2. We also provide more permissive sufficient conditions for immediate equivalence,
which can be interpreted as whenever the DM’s prior belief over different states is “almost
independent,” as mentioned previously.

9

Discussion of Results

The equivalence results presented earlier show that under certain conditions, a decisionmaker will (eventually) acquire the same sequence of signals whether he optimizes a myopic
criterion or a forward-looking criterion, and that these signal choices are “totally optimal.”
We discuss now certain conceptual implications of these results.
45

Every signal that is not “free” is still observed with positive frequency, as in Proposition 3 in Appendix
D. We could then apply Lemma 5 to deduce eventual equivalence.
46
This formulation can be seen as a limit of our discrete-time model, if we take period length to zero and
also “divide” the signals to maintain the same amount of information that can be gathered every second.
47
At an exogenously determined random final time t (drawn with density π(t)), the DM takes an action
a and receives payoff ut (a, θ1 ).
48
While the decision problem in Fudenberg, Strack and Strzalecki (2017) involves endogenous stopping,
as we have discussed in Section 7, this difference does not affect our analysis.
49
To apply Theorem 8, we observe that the payoff weights are w1 = w2 = 1 (replacing θ̃2 by its negative).
Thus the condition w1 (V11 + V12 ) + w2 (V21 + V22 ) ≥ 0 is satisfied for every prior covariance matrix V .

24

Robust Information Acquisition. It is standard to assume that decision-makers know their
objective function. In practice, however, decision-makers often do not know when or how
acquired information will be useful. For example, students take classes to acquire knowledge
without clear practical applications, and CEOs learn about their industry to inform decisions
that they cannot yet anticipate. These decision-makers’ beliefs over which decision problems
they will ultimately face, and when they will face them, can be highly complex. In fact,
decision-makers may not have well-defined beliefs, facing ambiguity over the final decision
problem and its timing. In general, the information acquisition problem for such decisionmakers can be difficult to describe and solve. Our results show that there are informational
environments in which these challenges can be sidestepped: by behaving myopically, the DM
acquires information in a way that is simultaneously best across all decision problems and
for all timings of decision. This suggests a domain in which robust information acquisition
is possible, and moreover simple enough for decision-makers to use in practice.
Multiple Decision-Makers. Consider a sequence of decision-makers who each acquires
a signal, whose realization is public, and then chooses an action (based on all past signal
realizations) to maximize a private objective. This model resembles the social learning frameworks first introduced in Banerjee (1992) and Bikhchandani, Hirshleifer and Welch (1992),
without the classic friction that decision-makers only observe coarse summary statistics of
past information acquisitions. In this setting, it is obvious that the decision-makers will eventually learn the payoff-relevant state. But an interesting feature of our environment is that
not only does learning occur, it turns out to occur “as fast as possible.” If the informational
environment is separable or symmetric, a social planner cannot improve on the amount of
information aggregated by a sequence of myopic decision-makers choosing information for
different and private objectives.50

10

Application: Games with Dynamic Information Acquisition

In general, the possibility for a decision-maker to jointly acquire information and also to
choose an optimal action introduces substantial technical complications—in particular, it is
often the case that the optimal signal choices and the optimal action sequences need to be
solved jointly. Our immediate equivalence results tell us that there are domains in which we
can separate the concern of optimal information acquisition from other details of the problem, thus simplifying the analysis. We describe in detail below one such domain—dynamic
information acquisition in games—with application to Hellwig and Veldkamp (2009) and
50

By Theorem 2, the planner (generically) can do no better than a long sequence of decision-makers.

25

Lambert, Ostrovsky and Panov (2017).
Consider a normal-form game with N players and action profiles A = ×i Ai . Each player
i’s payoff ui (a, ω) is a function of the realized action profile a ∈ A and an unknown real-valued
state ω. This payoff function is routinely extended to mixed action profiles by linearity.
The normal-form game will be played once. Time is discrete, and a full-support distribution π determines the final period in which the game will be played.51 In each period t up
to and including that final period, each player i has access to signals from the set (Xkit )K
k=1 ,
defined as follows:
Xkit = hck , θi i + ǫitk ,
(7)
i
where ck is a K × 1 vector of coefficients, the vector θi = (θ1i , θ2i , . . . , θK
) represents persistent
it
unknown states pertaining to player i’s observations, and ǫk are standard Gaussian noise
terms that are independent across signals, players and time.52
We require that the players share a common prior over ω and the states (θi )1≤i≤N with the
following conditional independence property: for each player i, conditional on the value of θ1i ,
the payoff-relevant state ω and the other players’ unknown states (θj )j6=i are conditionally
independent from player i’s states θi .53 This ensures that no player i infers anything about
ω or about any other player j’s information beyond what he (player i) learns about θ1i , which
essentially makes θ1i the only state of interest for player i.54
For concreteness, we provide examples (adapted from Lambert, Ostrovsky and Panov
(2017)) that do and do not satisfy conditional independence.55

Example 5 (Satisfies Conditional Independence). The payoff-relevant state is ω ∼ N (0, 1).
One player has access to noisy observations of ω + ρ1 ξ + b1 and b1 , where b1 is independent of
ω, ξ and ρ1 is a constant. The other player has access to noisy observations of ω +ρ2 ξ +b2 and
b2 , where b2 is independent of ω, ξ and b1 , and ρ2 is a constant. Then, defining θ11 = ω + ρ1 ξ
and θ12 = ω + ρ2 ξ, we see that for each player i, conditional on the value of θ1i , the state of
nature ω and also the the other player’s states (θ1j , bj ) are independent from bi . Thus, the
best way for player i to learn about ω and about the other player’s information is to learn
θ1i = ω + ρi ξ as precisely as possible.
51

It is not important that actions are synchronous. Our subsequent observations will hold even if players
take actions at different random times.
52
We make the simplifying assumption that the coefficients ck do not depend on the player, so that players
face symmetric informational environments. Assuming unit signal variances is just a normalization.
53
Note however that we do not impose conditional independence between ω and the other players’ states.
54
Conditional independence is imposed on players’ beliefs at t = 0. However, this assumption is sufficient
to guarantee conditional independence for all possible posterior beliefs—given the value of θ1i , each signal is
simply a linear combination of player i’s other states plus noise. Thus conditional independence is preserved.
55
Example 5 is based on Example OA.3 in Lambert, Ostrovsky and Panov (2017), and Example 6 is based
on their Example 1.

26

Example 6 (Fails Conditional Independence). The payoff-relevant state is ω. One player has
access to noisy observations of ω + ξ, where ξ is independent of ω. The other player has
access to noisy observations of both ω and ξ. Because both states ω and ξ covary with ω + ξ,
there is no way to define the second player’s “state of interest” that would satisfy conditional
independence.
Throughout, we maintain Assumptions 2 and 3. In the current context, Assumption 3
requires that each θ1i is exactly identified by the signals available to player i. Assumption 2 is
similarly modified to state that for each player i and arbitrary opponent strategies, player i’s
expected payoff, conditional on the value of θ1i , satisfies “payoff sensitivity to the mean.”56
This ensures that regardless of how opponents play, each player i always has strict incentive
to acquire information about θ1i . Finally, we assume that the informational environment is
separable or symmetric, as defined in Section 5.
In each period until the final period, each player i acquires B independent observations
of his signals described above, possibly obtaining multiple (independent) realizations of the
same signal. Both signal choices and their realizations are private information.
For each player, a history at the end of t periods is a sequence of (that player’s) signal
choices and their realizations up to and including period t. For a fixed player i, an information
acquisition strategy specifies a mapping from every history to a (multi-)set of B signals among
(Xki )1≤k≤K . A decision strategy specifies a mapping from every history to a mixed action
si ∈ ∆(Ai ). Player i’s strategy in this model consists of an information acquisition strategy
as well as a decision strategy. The players’ strategies, together with the distribution π
governing the final period, determine a joint distribution over states, histories and realized
action profiles. Each player seeks to maximize his expected payoff with respect to this
distribution, and we look for Nash equilibria of this model.
While this setup is rather general, it turns out to admit a simple solution:
Corollary 1. Under the above assumptions, each player’s signal path is myopic in every NE
of this model. That is, at every realized history, each player i acquires the B signals that
achieve the greatest immediate decrease in his belief variance about θ1i .57
In fact, our equivalence results show that the myopic information acquisition strategy is
dominant in the following sense: for arbitrary opponent strategies, player i’s best response
56

From player i’s perspective, the strategy of player j can be viewed as mappings from player j’s states
to player j’s mixed actions. Thus, given opponent strategies, player i’s expected payoff coni
ditional on his own states (θ1i , . . . , θK
) depends on his conditional belief about other players’ states and ω.
By “conditional independence”, this expectation is unchanged if player i only conditions on the value of θ1i ,
according to the prior.
57
Using the stronger solution concept of Perfect Bayesian equilibrium or Sequential equilibrium, we can
further deduce that the entire information acquisition strategy is myopic. That is, each player acquires
signals myopically at every history, on-path or off-path.
j
(θ1j , . . . , θK
)

27

consists of acquiring signals myopically. Crucially, the optimal signal choices are independent
of the game matrix itself (and of opponent strategies). We now illustrate the use of this
corollary with two examples.

10.1

A Beauty Contest Game

Hellwig and Veldkamp (2009) introduced a beauty contest game with information acquisition. We build on this by modifying the information acquisition stage so that players
sequentially acquire information over many periods (rather than once), and face a capacity constraint each period (rather than costly signals). We show that the basic insights of
Hellwig and Veldkamp (2009) hold in this setting.
Specifically, suppose that at an unknown final period, a unit mass of players simultaneously chooses prices pi ∈ R to minimize the (normalized) squared distance between their
price and an unknown target price p∗ , which depends on the unknown state ω and also on
R
the average price p = pi di:
ui (pi , p, ω) = −

1
· (pi − p∗ )2
(1 − r)2

where p∗ = (1 − r) · ω + r · p

(8)

The constant r ∈ (−1, 1) determines whether pricing decisions are complements or substitutes.58
In every period up until the final period, each player acquires B signals from the set (Xki ),
as in the framework we have developed. To closely mirror the setup in Hellwig and Veldkamp
(2009), we set each θ1i = ω. Assuming “conditional independence” of players’ signals, we can
directly apply Corollary 1 and conclude that in every equilibrium, players choose a deterministic (myopic) sequence of information acquisitions. This result echoes Hellwig and Veldkamp
(2009) (section 1.3.4), who show that equilibrium is unique when players choose from private
signals.59 Relative to these authors, our extension is to introduce dynamics and show how
the dynamic problem can be reduced into a static one, as we describe below.
Let Σ(t) be the posterior variance of a myopic decision-maker about ω after the first t
observations. Since the players in our model myopically acquire B signals per period, their
(common) posterior variance at the end of t periods is given by Σ(BT ). Thus, conditional on
58

When r > 0, best responses are increasing in the prices set by other players, thus decisions are complements. Conversely, r < 0 implies decisions are substitutes.
59
Hellwig and Veldkamp (2009) also study a case in which players observe signals that are distorted by
a common noise (which violates conditional independence). They show that multiple equilibria generally
arise with such “public signals”. Dewan and Myatt (2008) and Myatt and Wallace (2012) restore a unique
linear symmetric equilibrium by assuming perfectly divisible signals, similar to the continuous-time variant
of our model. In contrast, our equilibrium analysis relies on the informational environment (conditional
independence), but not on symmetry (across the players) or linearity (of the best reply function).

28

period T being the final period, our game is as if the players acquire a batch of BT signals
and then choose prices. This means that equilibrium prices are determined in the same way
as in Hellwig and Veldkamp (2009):
i
p(I≤BT
)=

1−r
i
· E(ω|I≤BT
)
1 − r + r · Σ(BT )

(9)

i
where I≤BT
represents player i’s information set, consisting of BT signal realizations.
We can use this characterization of equilibrium to re-evaluate the main insight in Hellwig and Veldkamp
(2009): the incentive to acquire more informative signals is increasing in aggregate information acquisition if decisions are complements and decreasing if decisions are substitutes. For
this purpose, we augment the model with a period 0, in which each player i invests in a
capacity level Bi at some cost. Afterwards, players acquire information myopically (under
possibly differential capacity constraints) and participate in the beauty contest game.
Let µ ∈ ∆(Z+ ) be the distribution over capacity levels chosen by player i’s opponents.
Then, player i’s expected utility from choosing capacity Bi is given by
"
#
Σ(Bi T )
EU(Bi , µ) = −ET ∼π
(10)
R
2 .
1 − r + r · B Σ(BT ) dµ(B)

Above, the expectation is taken with respect to the random final period T distributed acR
cording to π, while inside the expectation, the term B Σ(BT ) dµ(B) is the average posterior
variance among the players. Similar to Proposition 1 in Hellwig and Veldkamp (2009), we
have the following result:

Corollary 2. Suppose B̂i > Bi and µ̂ > µ in the sense of first-order stochastic dominance.
Then the sign of the difference EU(Bi , µ) + EU(B̂i , µ̂) − EU(Bi , µ̂) − EU(B̂i , µ) is
(a) zero, if there is no strategic interaction (r = 0);
(b) positive, if decisions are complementary (r > 0);
(c) negative, if decisions are substitutes (r < 0).
When decisions are complements, the value of additional information is increasing in the
amount of aggregate information. Thus player i has a stronger incentive to choose a higher
signal capacity if his opponents (on average) acquire more signals. This incentive goes in
the opposite direction when decisions are substitutes, which confirms the main finding of
Hellwig and Veldkamp (2009).

10.2

Strategic Trading

We consider the strategic trading game introduced in Lambert, Ostrovsky and Panov (2017),
in which individuals trade given asymmetric information about the value of an asset. We
29

endogenize the information available to traders by adding a pre-trading stage in which traders
sequentially acquire signals. As in our main framework, we suppose that trading occurs at
a final time period that is determined according to an arbitrary full-support distribution.
In more detail: at the final time period, a security with unknown value v is traded in a
market, and each of n traders submits a demand di . There are additionally liquidity traders
who generate exogenous random demand u. A market-maker privately observes a signal
P
θM (possibly multi-dimensional) and the total demand D = i di + u. He sets the price
P (θM , D), which in equilibrium equals E[v | θM , D]. Each strategic trader then obtains profit
Πi = di · (v − P (θM , D)).
We suppose that in each period up to and including the final time period, each trader
i chooses to observe a signal from his set (Xki ) (described above). We maintain all of the
previous assumptions on the informational environment. The requirement of conditional
independence is strengthened to apply to a payoff-relevant vector ω = (v, θM , u) (instead
of a real-valued unknown): that is, for each player i, conditional on the value of θ1i , the
payoff-relevant vector ω and the other players’ unknown states (θj )j6=i are assumed to be
conditionally independent from player i’s states θi . Relative to the fully general setting
considered in Lambert, Ostrovsky and Panov (2017), this assumption allows for flexible correlation within a player’s signals, but places a strong restriction on correlation across different
players’ signals. Applying Corollary 1, we can conclude that:
Corollary 3. Under the above assumptions, there is an essentially unique linear NE in
which the on-path signal acquisitions are myopic, and in the final period, players play the
unique linear equilibrium described in Lambert, Ostrovsky and Panov (2017).
Thus, the closed-form solutions that are a key contribution of Lambert, Ostrovsky and Panov
(2017) extend to this setting with endogenous information.

11
11.1

Related Literature
Dynamic Information Acquistion

Our work builds on a literature about optimal information acquisition in dynamic environments: see e.g. Wald (1947), Arrow, Blackwell and Girshick (1949), Moscarini and Smith
(2001), Steiner, Stewart and Matejka (2017), Ke, Shen and Villas-Boas (2016), Fudenberg, Strack and Strz
(2017), Che and Mierendorff (2017), Hebert and Woodford (2017), and Mayskaya (2017).
The main new feature in our problem is the introduction of flexible correlation across
information sources. Our DM chooses between a limited number of correlated information
sources, in contrast to the classic problem of choosing the precision of information (e.g.
30

Moscarini and Smith (2001)). This question of how to optimally choose between different
“kinds” of information is posed in the concurrent work of Fudenberg, Strack and Strzalecki
(2017), Che and Mierendorff (2017) and Mayskaya (2017). As mentioned in Section 8, the
continuous-time version of our model generalizes section 3.5 of Fudenberg, Strack and Strzalecki
(2017) to allow for many normally-distributed states and signals that may be arbitrarily correlated. In contrast, Che and Mierendorff (2017) and Mayskaya (2017) consider a DM who
allocates attention between Poisson sources that provide (noisy) evidence confirming one
of a finite number of states. Whether Gaussian or Poisson uncertainty is more appropriate depends on the setting: the Poisson model captures lumpy information, while Gaussian
learning is applicable when small amounts of information arrive frequently. Additionally, the
two approaches are distinguished by the cardinality of the state space—Che and Mierendorff
(2017) and Mayskaya (2017) assume (respectively) a binary and ternary state space, while
we work with a continuous state space. The former approach is more suited to problems
such as learning about whether a defendant is guilty or innocent, while the latter is more
suited to learning about the (real-valued) return to an investment.
Acquisition of Gaussian signals whose means are (special) linear combinations of unknown
states appears previously in the work of Sethi and Yildiz (2016) and also Meyer and Zwiebel
(2007).60 In particular, Sethi and Yildiz (2016) characterizes the long-run behavior of a DM
who myopically acquires information from experts with independent biases. Additionally,
Persico (2000), Hellwig and Veldkamp (2009), Myatt and Wallace (2012), and Lambert, Ostrovsky and Pan
(2017) consider games in which players receive Gaussian information only once. As we
demonstrated in Section 10, our results can be used to add certain kinds of sequential information acquisition to these models.
A key contribution of our paper, relative to this past work, is that we allow for arbitrary
payoff functions, and demonstrate that the optimality of myopic information acquisition
is independent of the objective. While previous dynamic models often focus on optimal
stopping under geometric discounting (or linear waiting cost), our results do not rely on
such specifications and extend also to situations in which the DM repeatedly takes actions
at the same as he acquires information. As discussed in Section 7, this extension makes it
possible to analyze a wider range of applications.

11.2

The Value of Information

Since our decision-maker compares signals in every period, our paper connects also to a
large body of work about the value of information. Blackwell (1951)’s classic work provides
a partial ordering over signals corresponding to when a signal is more valuable than another
60

Sethi and Yildiz (2016) inspired our benchmark model in Section 1.

31

in every decision problem. Subsequent work extended this partial ordering by restricting
to certain classes of decision problems: for example, Lehmann (1988) and Persico (2000).
Athey and Levin (2017) characterize the value of information for “monotone decision problems”, and Cabrales, Gossner and Serrano (2013) characterize the value of information for
a class of investment problems. We take the opposite approach of restricting the class of
information structures (considering only normal-linear signals), while allowing for general
and dynamic decision problems. Our equivalence results can be interpreted as showing that
dynamics need not alter the static ordering of signals, and that this property is independent
of the decision problem.

11.3

Statistics

Multi-armed Bandits. Our setting does not in general fall into the Multi-armed Bandit
(MAB) framework for which the classic work of Gittins (1979) applies (see also the survey
of Bergemann and Välimäki (2008)). The primary distinction is that in a MAB problem,
learning takes place through realized flow payoffs. In our model however, the DM’s action
does not influence his information acquisition. Because of this, our (totally optimal) problem
is close to the recent literature on best-arm-identification, where a DM samples for a number
of periods before selecting an arm and receiving its payoff (see Bubeck, Munos and Stoltz
(2009)). In fact, our results for two states (K = 2) exactly apply to best-arm-identification
problems with two arms and correlated normal-linear signals,61 although we cannot handle
more than two arms.62
Optimal Design. Our work is closely related to the field of optimal design, initiated
by the the early work of Robbins (1952) (see Chernoff (1972) for a survey). Under our
total optimality criterion, the DM simultaneously chooses t observations to achieve the most
accurate belief. This can be viewed as an optimal design problem with respect to the
“c-optimality criterion”, which seeks to minimize the variance of an unknown parameter.
A crucial difference is that our DM has access to a pre-defined set of coefficient vectors
(ci1 , . . . , ciK ). This distinguishes our model from most work in this literature, which assumes
fully flexible coefficients.
61

To see this, let µ1 , µ2 be the unknown expected payoffs of the two arms. Then the DM only cares
about the difference in means: θ1 = µ1 − µ2 , which fits our assumption of a single payoff-relevant
state. We are aware of very few papers that characterize the optimal policy for correlated bandits; see
Mersereau, Rusmevichientong and Tsitsiklis (2009) for the analysis of a special correlation structure.
62
Our analysis can handle settings in which: (a) the payoff function is arbitrary, but it depends on a single
state; and (b) the payoff function depends on multiple states, but it takes the special form of (weighted
sum of) squared prediction errors. While the two-arm case is included into (a), the setting with more than
two arms would involve multiple payoff-relevant states and a decision problem that is not prediction. Our
equivalence results would not apply.

32

12

Conclusion

Characterizing the optimal strategy for dynamic information acquisition is challenging in
many settings. Restrictions commonly imposed for tractability include: parametric assumptions about the decision problem and the discounting structure; separation in time between
information acquisitions and actions; and the assumption that information sources are uncorrelated (or have a specific correlation structure). Even with these restrictions, the optimal
solution often cannot be explicitly characterized.
We show that many of these limitations can be lifted by considering environments with
Gaussian signals. The setting that we propose and analyze is the following: a decision-maker
has access to Gaussian signals that exhibit arbitrary correlation; in each period he acquires
a fixed number of signals, and at a final time period he chooses an action based on the
information acquired so far. We provide sufficient conditions on the informational primitives
such that the myopic sequence of signal acquisitions is exactly optimal, thus permitting
simple characterization of forward-looking behavior. Generically, myopic signal acquisitions
are optimal at sufficiently late periods, permitting exact analysis of long-run behavior. These
results require no additional parametric assumptions on the decision problem and extend also
to contemporaneous action choices (including endogenous stopping problems).
Conceptually, our results demonstrate a class of environments in which myopic decision
making turns out to have strong robustness and optimality properties. This challenges the
conventional understanding that forward-looking information acquisition often requires great
sophistication. While our proof techniques in this paper rely on the assumption of normality, we believe that qualitative features of our results extend for “approximately normal”
environments, which would emerge naturally in settings where each acquisition consists of
large number of non-normal signals. We leave verification of this conjecture to future work.
Methodologically, our results simplify the analysis of optimal dynamic information acquisition in an informational environment that is commonly studied in economics. We demonstrate how existing papers that consider normal-linear signals can be extended to accommodate dynamic information acquisition. Finally, several extensions are of interest: specifically,
the presence of a greater number of sources than unknown states (over-identification), and
the possibility of evolving states.

A

Preliminary Results

We begin by presenting a number of preliminary results that are used throughout the appendix.
The first two lemmas below characterize the function f mentioned in the main text, which maps
signal counts to the DM’s posterior variance about the payoff-relevant state θ1 .

33

Lemma 4. Given prior covariance matrix V 0 and qi observations of each signal i, the DM’s
posterior variance about θ1 is given by
f (q1 , . . . , qK ) = [V 0 − V 0 C ′ Σ−1 CV 0 ]11
(11)


and D = diag σq12 , . . . , σqK2 . The function f is decreasing and convex in

where Σ = CV 0 C ′ + D −1

1

K

each qi whenever these arguments take non-negative extended real values: qi ∈ R+ = R+ ∪ {+∞}.

Proof. The expression (11) comes directly from the conditional variance formula for multivariate
∂f
≤ 0, consider the partial order  on positive semi-definite
Gaussian distributions. To prove ∂q
i
matrices so that A  B if and only if A − B is positive semi-definite. As qi increases, the matrices
D −1 and Σ decrease in this order. Thus Σ−1 increases in this order, which implies that V 0 −
V 0 C ′ Σ−1 CV 0 decreases in this order. In particular, the diagonal entries of V 0 − V 0 C ′ Σ−1 CV 0 are
uniformly smaller, so that f becomes smaller. Intuitively, more information always improves the
decision-maker’s estimates.
To prove f is convex, it suffices to prove f is midpoint-convex since the function is clearly
i 63
continuous. Take q1 , . . . , qK , r1 , . . . , rK ∈ R+ and let si = qi +r
Define the corresponding
2 .
diagonal matrices to be Dq , Dr , Ds . We need to show f (q1 , . . . , qK )+f (r1 , . . . , rK ) ≥ 2f (s1 , . . . , sK ).
For this, we first use the Woodbury inversion formula to write
Σ−1 = (CV 0 C ′ + D −1 )−1 = J − J(J + D)−1 J,
with J = (CV 0 C ′ )−1 . Plugging this back into (11), we see that it suffices to show the following
matrix order:
(J + Dq )−1 + (J + Dr )−1
 (J + Ds )−1 .
2
−1
Inverting both sides, we need to show 2 (J + Dq )−1 + (J + Dr )−1
 J + Ds . From definition,
qK +rK
1
Dq + Dr = diag( q1σ+r
,
.
.
.
,
)
=
2D
.
Thus
the
above
follows
from
the AM-HM inequality for
s
2
σ2
1

K

positive definite matrices, see for instance Ando (1983).
A.1

The Matrix Qi

Let us define for each 1 ≤ i ≤ K,

Qi = C −1 ∆ii C ′−1

(12)

where ∆ii is the matrix with ‘1’ in the (i, i)-th entry, and zeros elsewhere. We note that [Qi ]11 =
([C −1 ]1i )2 , which is strictly positive under Assumption 3.
A.2

Order Difference Lemma

In this subsection we establish the asymptotic order for the second derivatives of f .
Lemma 5. As q1 , . . . , qK → ∞,

∂2f
∂qi2

is positive with order

1
,
qi3

whereas

∂2f
∂qi ∂qj

has order at most

1
qi2 qj2

for any j 6= i. Formally, there is a positive constant L depending on the informational environment,
2f
2
| ≤ q2Lq2 .
such that ∂∂qf2 ≥ Lq1 3 and | ∂q∂i ∂q
j
i

i

i j

63

We allow the function f to take +∞ as arguments. This relaxation does not affect the properties of f ,
and it is convenient for our future analysis.

34

To interpret, the second derivative ∂ 2 f /∂qi2 is the effect of observing signal i on the marginal value
of the next observation of signal i. Our lemma says that this second derivative is always eventually
positive, so that each observation of signal i makes the next observation of signal i less valuable.
The cross-partial ∂ 2 f /∂qi ∂qj is the effect of observing signal i on the marginal value of the next
observation of a different signal j, and its sign is ambiguous.
The key content of the lemma is that regardless of the sign of the cross partial, it is always of
lower order compared to the second derivative. In words, the effect of observing a signal on the
marginal value of other signals (as quantified by the cross-partial) is eventually second-order to its
effect on the marginal value of further realizations of the same signal (as quantified by the second
derivative). This is true for any signal path in which the signal counts q1 , . . . , qK go to infinity
proportionally, which is guaranteed by Proposition 3 below.
Proof. Recall from Lemma 4 that f (q1 , . . . , qK ) = [V 0 − V 0 C ′ Σ−1 CV 0 ]11 and therefore
∂2f
= [∂ij (V 0 − V 0 C ′ Σ−1 CV 0 )]11
∂qi ∂qj

∂2f
= [∂ii (V 0 − V 0 C ′ Σ−1 CV 0 )]11
∂qi2

(13)

Using properties of matrix derivatives,
∂ii (Σ−1 ) = Σ−1 (∂i Σ)Σ−1 (∂i Σ)Σ−1 − Σ−1 (∂ii Σ)Σ−1 + Σ−1 (∂i Σ)Σ−1 (∂i Σ)Σ−1 .

(14)

The relevant derivatives of the covariance matrix Σ are
∂i Σ = −

σi2
∆ii
qi2

∂ii Σ =

Plugging these into (14), we obtain ∂ii (Σ−1 ) = −

2σi2
∆ii
qi3

2σi2
(Σ−1 ∆ii Σ−1 ) +
qi3

O

 
1
qi4

. Thus by (13),


 

2
−1

∂2f
1
2σi2  0 ′ −1
0 ′ ∂ (Σ )
0
−1
0
= −V C ·
· CV
= 3 · V C Σ ∆ii Σ CV 11 + O
4 .
∂qi2
∂qi2
q
q
i
i
11

(15)

As q1 , . . . , qk → ∞, Σ → CV 0 C ′ which is symmetric and non-singular. Thus the matrix V 0 C ′ Σ−1 ∆ii Σ−1 CV 0
2
converges to the matrix Qi defined earlier in (12). From (15) and [Qi ]11 > 0, we conclude that ∂∂qf2
is positive with order

1
.
qi3

i

Similarly, for i 6= j, we have

∂ij (Σ−1 ) = Σ−1 (∂j Σ)Σ−1 (∂i Σ)Σ−1 − Σ−1 (∂ij Σ)Σ−1 + Σ−1 (∂i Σ)Σ−1 (∂j Σ)Σ−1 .
The relevant derivatives of the covariance matrix Σ are
σ2
∂i Σ = − 2i ∆ii
qi
From this it follows that ∂ij

(Σ−1 )

pleting the proof of the lemma.

=O

∂j Σ = −


1
qi2 qj2



σj2
qj2

∆jj

∂ij Σ = 0

. The same holds for

35

∂2f
∂qi ∂qj

because of (13), com-

A.3

The Myopic DM Never Gets Stuck

The following technical lemma will be used to show that the myopic strategy observes each signal
infinitely often (see the proof of Prop 1 Part (a) below). As mentioned in the main text, proving
the analogous result for the (possibly stochastic) dynamically optimal strategy requires something
stronger, namely Assumption 4.
Lemma 6. For q1 , . . . , qK ∈ R+ , ∂i f (q1 , . . . , qK ) = 0, ∀i if and only if q1 = · · · = qK = +∞.
Proof. From the proof of Lemma 5, we have in general
∂i f = −

σi2
· [V 0 C ′ Σ−1 ∆ii Σ−1 CV 0 ]11 .
n2i

(16)

Suppose that each ∂i f is zero, and qi = +∞ for a proper subset I of signals. Then for any j ∈
/ I,
0
′
−1
−1
0
0
′
−1
it holds that [V C Σ ∆jj Σ CV ]11 = 0. Let v denote the first row vector of V C Σ , then
vj = 0 for any j ∈
/ I. Thus
vΣ = v(CV 0 C ′ + D −1 ) = vCV 0 C ′ + vD −1 = vCV 0 C ′

 2
2
σK
σ
is zero on
where the last equality is because vj = 0 whenever j ∈
/ I, while D −1 = diag q11 , . . . , qK
those rows i with i ∈ I. Recall that we defined v = e1 V 0 C ′ Σ−1 . Hence from the preceding display,
e1 = vΣ(V 0 C ′ )−1 = vCV 0 C ′ (V 0 C ′ )−1 = vC.
That is, v is the first row of C −1 . By Assumption 3, all coordinates of v are non-zero. Thus I = [K],
proving the desired statement.
We note that ∂i f = 0 could happen for some signal i, so that f is not necessarily strictly
decreasing in its arguments.64 The content of Lemma 6 is to show at every history, there is some
signal that provides positive marginal value.65 In contrast, the stronger Assumption 4 described in
the main text requires the same signal to have positive value at every history.

B

Proofs in Section 4 (Reduction)

Proof of Lemma 2. Following the discussion in the main text, we only need to show that the signal
with greatest immediate decrease in variance dominates every other signal in the Blackwell sense.
Consider any signal i that yields posterior variance [V t ]11 about θ1 with V t = φi (V t−1 ). We recall
that the DM’s distribution of posterior beliefs about θ1 is θ1 ∼ N (µt1 , [V t ]11 , with the posterior mean
t−1 ] − [V t ] ). It is easily checked that the same distribution
µt1 randomly drawn from N (µt−1
11
11
1 , [V
of posterior beliefs is generated if instead the DM observes the following signal:


[V t−1 ]11 · [V t ]11
,
ǫX ⊥ θ 1 .
X̃ = θ1 + ǫX ;
ǫX ∼ N 0, t−1
[V
]11 − [V t ]11



a b
, and signal variances are 1. Then ∂1 f (q1 , q2 ) = 0 iff
c d
(ad − bc)dq2 + a = 0. This occurs when a = d = 13 , b = c = 23 and q2 = 3. In such an environment, a DM
who has observed signal 2 three times does not benefit from signal 1 (until he observes the next signal 2).
65
This relies on normal-linear signals, see Appendix J.3.
64

Suppose K = 2, V 0 = I2 , C =

36

It is then clear that a signal with larger posterior variance [V t ]11 corresponds to the noise term ǫX
having larger variance, which is necessarily a garbling according to Blackwell. This proves that the
myopic signal choice for prediction is myopic for any decision problem.
To prove the converse, we need to show that a signal with strictly larger posterior variance
leads to strictly lower current-period flow payoff. For this, consider a pair of signals i, j with
[φi (V t−1 )]11 < [φj (V t−1 )]11 . These signals are equivalent (in terms of the induced distribution of
beliefs about θ1 ) to X̃ = θ1 + ǫX and Ỹ = θ1 + ǫY as defined above, with the noise term ǫX having
smaller variance than ǫY . Then Ỹ is further equivalent to Z̃ = θ1 + ǫX + ǫZ , with ǫZ a Gaussian
noise independent from θ1 and ǫX . This analysis shows, as we mentioned, that Z̃ = X̃ + ǫZ is a
garbled signal of X̃. A DM observing any realization of X̃ can randomly draw ǫZ and take the
optimal action according to the resulting value of Z̃. By payoff sensitivity (Assumption 2), there is
no single action that is optimal for all realizations of Z̃. Thus, by taking appropriate mixed actions
(with the same support) upon any signal realization, a DM receiving signal i can achieve the same
expected payoff as another DM receiving signal j. But payoff sensitivity implies that pure actions
do even better, completing the proof.
Proof of Lemma 3. We will show that starting with any prior covariance matrix V 0 , a strategy S is
totally optimal at time t if and only if the realized division q S (t) is always a totally optimal division
defined with respect to this prior (minimizing the posterior variance about θ1 after t periods).
First consider the “if” part. Take any strategy S that induces totally optimal divisions. We
need to show S yields a weakly higher flow payoff in period t than every other strategy S ′ . We
prove this by induction on t. When t = 1, total optimality reduces to myopic optimality, and the
claim follows from Lemma 2.
Suppose the result holds for t − 1. With t periods, we view any strategy S ′ following the prior
(µ0 , V 0 ) as consisting of two parts: a signal choice i in the first period, and a family of contingent
strategies following the new belief (µ1 , φi (V 0 )). Applying the induction hypothesis to every such
belief, we see that the expected payoff (in period t) of any contingent strategy is no more than a
contingent strategy that observes each signal j for q̂j periods, independent of signal realizations.
Here (q̂1 , . . . , q̂K ) is a totally optimal division for t − 1 periods (from period 2 to period t), defined
with respect to the new prior covariance matrix φi (V 0 ). Equivalently, q̂ is a division that minimizes
f (q̂i + 1, q̂−i ) subject to q̂1 + · · · + q̂K = t − 1.
In such a way, we have found a deterministic strategy66 Ŝ ′ that yields a weakly higher payoff
in period t than the strategy S ′ . By similar reasoning, we can find a deterministic strategy Ŝ that
yields the same period-t payoff as S, but Ŝ induces a deterministic totally optimal division at time
t.67 Now observe that Ŝ and Ŝ ′ are both deterministic strategies, thus a DM using either strategy
is equivalently choosing a collection of t signals to observe, and sequentiality does not matter. By
definition of totally optimal divisions, Ŝ induces lower variance than Ŝ ′ in period t. We can thus
invoke the Blackwell ordering argument to conclude that Ŝ yields a weakly higher payoff than Ŝ ′
in period t. This implies S is better than S ′ , completing the induction.
An analogous inductive argument proves the “only if” part; that is, S is totally optimal at time
t only if the realized division q S (t) is always a totally optimal division.
66

The signal choice in the first period is always deterministic, and by construction later signal choices are
also deterministic, not depending on signal realizations.
67
Because S induces totally optimal divisions, its contingent strategies must induce totally optimal divisions at time t−1 (defined with respect to the new prior). By induction hypothesis, these contingent strategies
maximize payoff in period t. This payoff is the same as if the contingent strategy does not condition on
signal realizations.

37

C

Proofs in Section 5 (Immediate Equivalence)

We first introduce a notion of “total optimality following a given history”:
Definition 6. Fix a history h with length H, where each signal i has been observed Hi times. A
division over signals is constrained totally optimal at time t ≥ H (following history h), if
(n1 , . . . , nK ) ∈

argmin
P

qi ≥Hi ,

f (q1 , . . . , qK ).

i qi =t

That is, the division minimizes the DM’s posterior variance about θ1 at time t among all divisions
“reachable from history h”. We write any such division as nh (t).
When h is the null history, this definition reduces to (unconstrained) total optimality as defined
in the main text. In general, Lemma 3 implies that following history h, a continuation strategy
maximizes the flow payoff in period t iff it always induces a constrained totally optimal division.68
Proof of Proposition 1. Suppose the informational environment is separable. Similar to Lemma
1 for our benchmark case, we claim that after a one-shot deviation from the myopic rule, the
posterior variances along the deviation path are uniformly larger than along the original myopic
path. Once this is proved, we can conclude that any myopic strategy achieves constrained total
optimality following any given history, for the prediction problem. By our reduction results, myopic
is constrained totally optimal for any decision problem and it is thus dynamically optimal.
Take a signal path h = (s1 , s2 , . . . ) that follows the myopic rule starting at time t. Consider
a deviation path h̃ = (s̃1 , s̃2 , . . . ) that observes some signal i 6= st in period t but subsequently
follows the myopic rule. Let t be the first period after t such that st = i. We will show that in
any period t ∈ (t, t], s̃t = st−1 , so that the deviation path attempts to “catch up” with the original
myopic path.
To see this, we use induction on t. Suppose we have shown that the deviation path up to time
t − 1 is
h̃t−1 = (s1 , . . . , st−1 , i, st , . . . , st−2 )
while the original myopic path up to time t − 1 satisfies
ht−1 = (s1 , . . . , st−1 , st , . . . , st−1 ).
Let j = st−1 and (q1 , . . . , qK ) be the myopic division at time t − 2. Then myopic optimality at time
t − 1 implies
f (qj + 1, q−j ) ≤ f (qk + 1, q−k ), ∀k ∈ {1, . . . , K}.
Using f (q1 , . . . , qK ) = F (g1 (q1 ) + · · · + gK (qK )) and the monotonicity of F , we can rewrite the
above as
gj (qj + 1) − gj (qj ) ≤ gk (qk + 1) − gk (qk ), ∀k.
This implies gj (qj + 1) − gj (qj ) ≤ gk (qk + 1) − gk (qk ), ∀k 6= i and gj (qj + 1) − gj (qj ) ≤ gi (qi +
2) − gi (qi + 1) by the convexity of gi . Now observe that the deviation path has division (qi + 1, q−i )
at time t − 1. Thus, the previous inequalities imply that signal j is the myopic choice at history
h̃t−1 , completing the characterization of the deviation path. With this, we can apply the same
exchangeability argument as in the proof of Lemma 1. Hence the Proposition follows.
68

We use the convention that the induced division of a continuation strategy includes the signals observed
in the initial history. This simplifies notation in the sequel.

38

Proof of Proposition 2. Suppose the informational environment is symmetric. We claim that at
any time t, a division n(t) is totally optimal if and only if |ni (t) − nP
j (t)| ≤ 1 holds for every pair of
signals i, j. Obviously, the divisions that have this property (and i ni (t) = t) are symmetric (as
tuples) to one another. Hence they achieve the same payoff, and it suffices to prove the “only if”
part of the claim.
Consider any division (q1 , . . . , qK ) with q1 ≥ · · · ≥ qK . We will prove that if q1 − qK ≥ 2, then
this division is not totally optimal. By symmetry and convexity of f , we have
f (q1 , q2 , . . . , qK−1 , qK ) = f (qK , q2 , . . . , qK−1 , q1 ) ≥ f (q1 − 1, q2 , . . . , qK−1 , qK + 1).
because the vector (q1 − 1, . . . , qK + 1) is a convex combination of the vectors (q1 , . . . , qK ) and
(qK , . . . , q1 ). Using Lemma 6, we can show the inequality here must be strict.69 The claim follows.
From this characterization of totally optimal divisions, we see that for every totally optimal
division n(t), there exists some totally optimal division n(t + 1) with ni (t + 1) ≥ ni (t), ∀i. Hence a
myopic DM can achieve total optimality at every time, and so he will. This proves that the myopic
strategy maximizes the ex-ante payoff.
We can further prove the optimality of the myopic strategy following any history. The argument
is essentially the same: given any history h consisting of Hi observations of each signal i, we can
characterize the constrained totally optimal divisions. Specifically, a division nh (t) is constrained
totally optimal if and only if it has the following property: for any pair of signals i, j, if nhi (t) > Hi ,
then nhi (t) − nhj (t) ≤ 1. These constrained totally optimal divisions are again monotonic over time,
proving that any myopic strategy is constrained totally optimal and dynamically optimal.

D

Asymptotic Characterization

An important step toward proving our equivalence results is to show that the signal counts grow
to infinity proportionally, under any of the three optimality criteria.
Proposition 3. Suppose the informational environment
(V 0 , C, {σi2 }) satisfies Assumption 3 and
P
4. Then there exist constants λ1 , . . . , λK > 0 with i λi = 1 and a large constant N such that
(a) |ni (t) − λi t| ≤ N, ∀i.

(b) |mi (t) − λi t| ≤ N, ∀i.
(c) |di (t) − λi t| ≤ N, ∀i for every realized division d(t).
The constant N only depends on the informational environment but not on the decision problem.
The asymptotic proportions λ1 , . . . , λK are given by

69

|[C −1 ]1i | · σi
.
λi = PK
−1 ] | · σ
1j
j
j=1 |[C

(17)

Suppose equality holds. By convexity, f (q1 − ǫ, q2 , . . . , qK−1 , qK + ǫ) is a constant c for ǫ ∈ [0, 1]. Because
f is a rational function (quotient of polynomials), this constant value extends to all ǫ ∈ R. Letting ǫ → +∞,
we deduce f (−∞, q2 , . . . , qK−1 , +∞) = c. Hence f (+∞, q2 , . . . , qK−1 , +∞) = c also holds, because the Σ
matrix for q1 = +∞ is the same as for q1 = −∞. Thus f (q1 , q2 , . . . , qK−1 , qK ) = f (+∞, q2 , . . . , qK−1 , +∞).
By the monotonicity of f , this implies f (q̂1 , q2 , . . . , qK−1 , q̂K ) = c whenever q̂1 ≥ q1 and q̂K ≥ qK . By the
rational function argument again, this constant value extends to all q̂1 and q̂K . Thus f (q1 , q2 , . . . , qK−1 , qK ) =
f (0, q2 , . . . , qK−1 , 0). By Lemma 6, there exists a signal i ∈ {2, . . . , K − 1} such that ∂i f (0, q2 , . . . , qK−1 , 0) is
strictly negative. Without loss assume i = 2, then f (0, q2 + q1 + qK , q3 , . . . , qK−1 , 0) < f (0, q2 , . . . , qK−1 , 0) =
f (q1 , q2 , . . . , qK−1 , qK ), contradicting total optimality.

39

Below we present the proofs for the first two parts of this proposition. The corresponding result
for dynamically optimal strategies is proved later, in Appendix F.
Proof of Proposition 3 Part (a). Let us first show n1 (t), . . . , nK (t) → +∞ as t → +∞. Suppose
this is not true, then we can find a subsequence of times, such that for each signal j, nj (t) either
remains constant or diverges to infinity as t increases along this subsequence, and the former
(nj (t) is constant) occurs for some signal j.70 Let qj be the limit of nj (t) along this subsequence,
then a proper subset of q1 , . . . , qK is equal to +∞. By Lemma 6, there is some signal j with
∂j f (q1 , q2 , . . . , qK ) < 0; thus qj is finite in particular. Relabeling the signals if necessary, we assume
j = 1. Let us further assume q2 = +∞ so that ∂2 f (q1 , q2 , . . . , qK ) = 0. By continuity, the discrete
partial derivatives of f satisfy the following inequality:71
∂1 f (n1 (t), n2 (t) − 1, . . . , nK (t)) < ∂2 f (n1 (t), n2 (t) − 1, . . . , nK (t))
for sufficiently large t along this subsequence. But this implies
f (n1 (t) + 1, n2 (t) − 1, . . . , nK (t)) < f (n1 (t), n2 (t), . . . , nK (t)),
contradicting the assumption that (n1 (t), n2 (t), . . . , nK (t)) is a totally optimal division.
Next, as each ni → +∞, the matrix V 0 C ′ Σ−1 ∆ii Σ−1 CV 0 converges to the matrix Qi defined
−σ2
above in (12). It follows from (16) that ∂i f ∼ n2i · [Qi ]11 (ratio converges to 1). Since a totally
i

optimal division must satisfy ∂i f ∼ ∂j f ,72 we deduce that ni , nj must grow proportionally. Using
[Qi ]11 = ([C −1 ]1i )2 , we deduce ni (t) ∼ λi t.
Finally, from ni ∼ λi t we have Σ = CV 0 C ′ + D −1 = CV 0 C ′ + O( 1t ). Thus the matrix

V 0 C ′ Σ−1 ∆ii Σ−1 CV 0 converges to Qi at the rate of 1t . From (16), we obtain ∂i f =
Thus the first-order condition ∂i f = ∂j f implies

λ2i +O( 1t )
n2i

=

λ2j +O( 1t ) 73
.
n2j

−σi2 ·[Qi ]11 +O( 1t )
.
n2i

This is equivalent to

λ2i n2j − λ2j n2i = O(t), which yields λi nj − λj ni = O(1) after factorization. Hence ni = λi t + O(1).
Proof of Proposition 3 Part (b). We turn to a myopic decision-maker. The first-order condition
∂i f = ∂j f need not hold, but we do know that if signal i maximizes |∂i f | at time t, it will be
observed in the next period. This property allows us to use the same argument as in the preceding
−σ2
proof to show mi (t) → +∞, ∀i. Furthermore, the approximation ∂i f ∼ m2i · [Qi ]11 implies that if
i

mi (t) > (λi + ǫ)t, then ∂i f (m(t)) > ∂j f (m(t)) for the signal j with mj (t) < λj t. Thus this signal i
cannot be myopically observed in period t + 1. This shows mi (t) ∼ λi t for sufficiently large t.74
−σ2 ·[Q ] +O( 1 )

i 11
i
t
. Pick L to be a
With mi (t) ∼ λi (t), we have the better approximation ∂i f =
m2i
sufficiently large constant. Whenever mi (t) > λi t − 1 and mj (t) < λj t − L, we have ∂i f (m(t)) >
∂j f (m(t)) so that signal i is not observed in period t + 1. The “−1” is chosen for later convenience.

70

Either nj (t) remains bounded, or there is a subsequence that diverges to infinity. Moreover, a bounded
sequence necessarily has a constant subsequence.
71
Here and later, we will often abuse notation and let ∂i f also denote the discrete partial derivative of f :
∂i f (qi , q−i ) = f (qi + 1, q−i ) − f (qi , q−i ), which equals an integral of the usual continuous derivative of f over
the interval [qi , qi + 1]. We will similarly abuse the second derivatives ∂ii f and ∂ij f . Whether the discrete
or the continuous derivative is used will be clarified in the context.
72
Because we are doing discrete optimization, ∂i f and ∂j f need not be exactly equal. But they must be
approximately equal.
73
These partials need not be exactly equal, but the error terms that arise are on the order of O( 1t ).
74
We omit the detailed argument, which is similar to what we do in the next two paragraphs.

40

P z 2 (t)
measure the discrepancy
Define zk (t) = mk (t) − λk t, ∀k and Z(t) = k kλk . These functions
P
between the myopic division and its linear asymptote. Note that k zk (t) = 0. We claim that Z(t)
is a bounded function. This is trivially true if each zk (t) ≥ −L. Suppose instead that zj (t) < −L for
some j. Then by the analysis in the previous paragraph, the signal i that is observed in period t + 1
must satisfy mi (t) ≤ λi t−1. Under the myopic strategy, mi (t+1) = mi (t)+1 and mk (t+1) = mk (t)
for every
P k 6= i. Thus
P zi (t + 1) = zi (t) − λi + 1, and zk (t + 1) = zk (t) − λk for k 6= i. From this, and
using k λk = 1, k zk (t) = 0, we can deduce after simplifications that
Z(t + 1) = Z(t) +

2zi (t) − λi + 1
λi

Since zi (t) ≤ −1, λi ∈ (0, 1), we have Z(t + 1) < Z(t) − 1. Hence Z(t) and each zi (t) remains
bounded, proving the proposition.

E

Proof of Theorem 1 (Eventual Gap of One)

We present the proof for equivalence between myopic and total optimality. The comparison with
dynamic optimality follows similar arguments, with extra technicalities addressed in Appendix F.
that m1 (t) ≤ n1 (t) − 2 (the opposite case will be treated later). Since
PKSuppose for contradiction
PK
i=1 mi (t) = t =
i=1 ni (t), we can assume without loss m2 (t) ≥ n2 (t) + 1. For notational ease,
write ni = ni (t), ∀ 1 ≤ i ≤ K. By total optimality of the division (n1 , . . . , nK ) we have
f (n1 − 1, n2 + 1, . . . , nK ) ≥ f (n1 , n2 , . . . , nK ).
Consider the last period t̃ ≤ t in which a myopic decision-maker observed signal 2. Write
m̃i = mi (t̃), ∀i. By assumption we have m̃1 ≤ m1 (t) ≤ n1 − 2, and m̃2 = m2 (t) ≥ n2 + 1. Moreover,
from Proposition 3, we know that t − t̃, and thus also each |m̃i − ni |, is bounded above by a constant
independent of t. Let us show under these conditions that
f (n1 − 1, n2 + 1, . . . , nK ) ≥ f (n1 , n2 , . . . , nK )

=⇒ f (m̃1 , m̃2 , . . . , m̃K ) > f (m̃1 + 1, m̃2 − 1, . . . , m̃K ).

(18)

This will imply that the myopic decision-maker could have deviated to observing signal 1 rather
than signal 2 at time t̃ and achieve a smaller posterior variance (at time t̃), yielding a contradiction.
To show (18), we first rewrite the (first-half) assumption as
∂2 f (n1 − 1, n2 , . . . , nK ) ≥ ∂1 f (n1 − 1, n2 , . . . , nK ),

(19)

where ∂i f denotes the discrete partial derivative with respect to signal i. We also rewrite the
(second-half) conclusion in (18) as
∂2 f (m̃1 , m̃2 − 1, . . . , m̃K ) > ∂1 f (m̃1 , m̃2 − 1, . . . , m̃K ).

(20)

Our goal is to show (19) implies (20). To do this, let us first compare the LHS of (20) to the LHS
of (19). The difference can be rewritten as a sum of second derivatives:
X
(m̃1 − n1 + 1)∂21 f + (m̃2 − 1 − n2 )∂22 f +
(m̃j − nj )∂2j f.
j>2

Since m̃2 ≥ n2 + 1, the contribution of the second summand (m̃2 − 1 − n2 )∂22 f is non-negative.
Thus we deduce that that LHS of (20) is at least the LHS of (19) minus O( t14 ), which captures the
combined effects of cross partials (by Lemma 5 and Proposition 3).

41

On the other hand, the RHS of (20) differs from the RHS of (19) by
X
(m̃1 − n1 + 1)∂11 f + (m̃2 − 1 − n2 )∂12 f +
(m̃j − nj )∂1j f
j>2

which is negative with order O( t13 ) because of the first summand (recall m̃1 ≤ n1 − 2). Hence we
have shown that from (19) to (20), the RHS decreases by more than the LHS for t sufficiently large.
Thus (19) implies (20) as desired, and we have ruled out m1 (t) ≤ n1 (t) − 2.
Suppose instead that m1 (t) ≥ n1 (t) + 2 and m2 (t) ≤ n2 (t) − 1. Then we can take t̃ to be the
last period in which a myopic decision-maker observed signal 1. A symmetric argument shows that
the DM could have profitably deviated to observing signal 2 at time t̃. The theorem follows.

References
Ando, Tsuyoshi. 1983. “On the Arithmetic-Geometric-Harmonic-Mean Inequalities for Positive
Definite Matrices.” Linear Algebra and its Applications, 52: 31–37.
Arrow, K. J., D. Blackwell, and M. A. Girshick. 1949. “Bayes and Minimax Solutions of
Sequential Decision Problems.” Econometrica, 17(3): 213–244.
Athey, Susan, and Jonathan Levin. 2017. “The Value of Information in Monotone Decision
Problems.” Working Paper.
Banerjee, Abhijit. 1992. “A Simple Model of Herd Behavior.” Quaterly Journal of Economics,
107(3): 797–817.
Bergemann, Dirk, and Juuso Välimäki. 2008. “Bandit Problems.” In The New Palgrave
Dictionary of Economics. , ed. Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume. Basingstoke:Palgrave
Macmillan.
Bikhchandani, Sushil, David Hirshleifer, and Ivo Welch. 1992. “A Theory of Fads, Fashion, Custom, and Cultural Change as Information Cascades.” Journal of Political Economy,
100(5): 992–1026.
Blackwell, David. 1951. “Proceedings of the Second Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probability.” Chapter Comparison of Experiments, 93–102. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
Bubeck, Sebastian, Remi Munos, and Gilles Stoltz. 2009. “Pure Exploration in Multi-armed
Bandits Problems.” In Algorithmic Learning Theory. ALT 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer
Science, vol 5809. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Cabrales, Antonio, Olivier Gossner, and Roberto Serrano. 2013. “Entropy and the Value
of Information for Investors.” American Economic Review, 103(1): 360–377.
Chernoff, Herman. 1972. Sequential Analysis and Optimal Design. Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics.
Che, Yeon-Koo, and Konrad Mierendorff. 2017. “Optimal Sequential Decision with Limited
Attention.” Working Paper.
Dewan, Torun, and David P. Myatt. 2008. “The Qualities of Leadership: Direction, Communication and Obfuscation.” American Political Science Review, 102(3): 351–368.

42

Fudenberg, Drew, Philip Strack, and Tomasz Strzalecki. 2017. “Stochastic Choice and
Optimal Sequential Sampling.” Working Paper.
Gittins, J. C. 1979. “Bandit processes and dynamic allocation indices.” Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, Series B, 148–177.
Hebert, Ben, and Michael Woodford. 2017. “Rational Inattention with Sequential Information
Sampling.” Working Paper.
Hellwig, Christian, and Laura Veldkamp. 2009. “Knowing What Others Know: Coordination
Motives in Information Acquisition.” The Review of Economic Studies, 76: 223–251.
Ke, T. Tony, Zuo-Jun Max Shen, and J. Miguel Villas-Boas. 2016. “Search for Information
on Multiple Products.” Management Science, 62(12): 3576–3603.
Lambert, Nicolas, Michael Ostrovsky, and Mikhail Panov. 2017. “Strategic Trading in
Informationally Complex Environments.” Working Paper.
Lehmann, E. L. 1988. “Comparing Location Experiments.” The Annals of Statistics, 16(2): 521–
533.
Mayskaya, Tatiana. 2017. “Dynamic Choice of Information Sources.” Working Paper.
Mersereau, Adam J, Paat Rusmevichientong, and John N Tsitsiklis. 2009. “A Structured
Multiarmed Bandit Problem and the Greedy Policy.” IEEE Transactions On Automatic Control,
54(12): 2787–2802.
Meyer, Margaret, and Jeffrey Zwiebel. 2007. “Learning and Self-Reinforcing Behavior.” Working Paper.
Moscarini, Guiseppe, and Lones Smith. 2001. “The Optimal Level of Experimentation.”
Econometrica, 69(6): 1629–1644.
Myatt, David P., and Chris Wallace. 2012. “Endogenous Information Acquisition in Coordination Games.” The Review of Economic Studies, 79: 340–374.
Persico, Nicola. 2000. “Information Acquisition in Auctions.” Econometrica, 68(1): 135–148.
Robbins, Herbert. 1952. “Some aspects of the sequential design of experiments.” Bull. Amer.
Math. Soc., 58(5): 527–535.
Rudelson, Mark, and Roman Vershynin. 2008. “The Least Singular Value of a Random
Matrix is O(n−1/2 ).” C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris, 346: 893–896.
Sethi, Rajiv, and Muhamet Yildiz. 2016. “Communication with Unknown Perspectives.”
Econometrica, 84(6): 2029–2069.
Steiner, Jakub, Colin Stewart, and Filip Matejka. 2017. “Rational Inattention Dynamics:
Inertia and Delay in Decision-Making.” Econometrica, 85(2): 521–553.
Tao, Terence, and Van Vu. 2010. “Random Matrices: the Distribution of the Smallest Singular
Values.” Geometric and Functional Analysis, 20(1): 260–297.
Wald, Abraham. 1947. “Foundations of a General Theory of Sequential Decision Functions.”
Econometrica, 15(4): 279–313.

43

For Online Publication
F

Omitted Proofs for Dynamically Optimal Strategies

In this appendix, we extend the previous proof of “eventual gap of one” to dynamically optimal
strategies. This extension is technically difficult in part because dynamically optimal strategies
often condition on signal realizations, so that the induced division d(t) can be stochastic. Still,
we will show that every realized division d(t) differs by at most one (in each signal) from the
deterministic division m(t) under a myopic strategy or from a totally optimal division n(t). To
that end, we first establish a dynamic Blackwell-dominance lemma for comparing sequences of
normal signals.
F.1

A Dynamic Blackwell-dominance Lemma

Recall that the DM only needs to remember the expected value about θ1 and the covariance matrix
of all the states. Thus, a history of (payoff-relevant) beliefs is hT = (µ01 , V 0 ; . . . ; µT1 , V T ). For a fixed
prior covariance matrix V 0 , an alternative way to summarize the history is the divisions over signals.
That is, a history up to and including period T can also be written as hT = (µ01 , d(0); . . . ; µT1 , d(T )),
where each d(t) = (d1 (t), . . . , dK (t)) counts the number of each signal acquired by time t. In this
section, we will use this alternative definition of history and view a strategy S as a mapping from
such sequences of divisions to signal choices. Each strategy induces a distribution of histories and
determines the DM’s expected payoff (assuming that he takes action optimally in the final period).
Consider a mapping G̃ from possible sequences of divisions to these sequences themselves: For
˜
˜
each sequence of divisions (d(0), . . . , d(T )), G̃ maps to another sequence
P ˜ (d(0), . . . , d(T )), subject
to “consistency.” There are three consistency requirements: First, i di (t) = t, meaning that each
˜ must be a possible division at time t. Second, d˜i (t) ≥ d˜i (t − 1), meaning that the sequence d˜
d(t)
can be realized under some strategy. Lastly, we require
˜
˜ − 1)) = G̃(d(0), . . . , d(T − 1))
(d(0),
. . . , d(T
so that nesting sequences are mapped to nesting sequences. For simplicity, we will often denote
d(0) by the vector 0.
We will use any such mapping G̃ to construct a deviation strategy S̃ from a given strategy S.
Loosely speaking, whenever d(T ) is the realized division under strategy S, we will let S̃ induce the
˜ ) = G̃(d(T )). Thus if f (d(T
˜ )) ≤ f (d(T )) always holds, the DM’s posterior variance
division d(T
about θ1 is always smaller under strategy S̃ than under strategy S, which would imply via Blackwell
dominance that S̃ yields higher payoff than S.
Lemma 7. Fix any strategy S and any consistent mapping G̃ defined above. Suppose that for every
sequence of divisions (d(0), . . . , d(T )) realized under S, it holds that
f (d̃(T )) ≤ f (d(T ))
with strict inequality occurring with positive probability (under S). Then S is not a dynamically
optimal strategy.
We first give an intuitive discussion of the proof before supplying the formal details. As men˜ ) whenever S would
tioned, the basic idea is to construct a strategy S̃ that achieves the division d(T
achieve d(T ). That is, suppose the sequence of divisions under S has been d(0), . . . , d(T − 1), and S

44

dictates observing some signal to reach the division d(T ) in the next period, then we let S̃ observe
˜ ) from the current division d(T
˜ − 1).
some other signal to reach the division d(T
If the strategy S were deterministic (not depending on signals realizations), then this construction would be sufficient. However, difficulty arises whenever S conditions on the expected
value about θ1 . To explain, consider a history hT −1 = (µ01 , d(0); . . . ; µT1 −1 , d(T − 1)). At this
history, strategy S is going to achieve the division d(T ) in the next period, and we want strat˜ ). But we cannot simply let S̃ reach d(T
˜ ) from the history
egy S̃ to achieve the division d(T
T −1 ˜
T
−1
0
˜
h̃
= (µ1 , d(0); . . . ; µ1 , d(T − 1)). This is because the same sequence of posterior expected
values is realized with different probabilities under S̃ than under S, which makes it impossible to
compare expected payoffs.
˜ ) from a distribution of
To address this difficulty, we instead let S̃ achieve the division d(T
T −1 ˜
T
−1
0
˜
histories h̃
= (ν1 , d(0); . . . ; ν1 , d(T − 1)), such that these histories occur with the same
probability (under S̃) as the probability that hT −1 occurs (under S). This ensures that we can
compare the DM’s average payoff at these histories to his payoff at history hT −1 . Furthermore,
we require these histories to induce a distribution of beliefs about θ1 that Blackwell-dominates the
belief θ1 ∼ N (µT1 −1 , f (d(T − 1))) at hT −1 , so that the DM’s average payoff is indeed higher under
the deviation S̃.
˜
Because f (d(1))
≤ f (d(1)), the DM’s distribution of posterior beliefs about θ1 after one observation is Blackwell more informative under S̃ than under S. Thus the two conditions identified in
the preceding paragraph are satisfied at initial times T . Our key argument is to extend these con˜ − 1)))
ditions inductively. Specifically, we show that if a distribution of beliefs θ1 ∼ N (ν1T −1 , f (d(T
T −1
Blackwell-dominates a single belief θ1 ∼ N (µ1 , f (d(T − 1))), then after observing a signal in
period T (possibly different signal under S̃ than under S), the posterior distribution of beliefs
˜ ))) Blackwell-dominates the posterior distribution of beliefs θ1 ∼ N (µT , f (d(T ))).
θ1 ∼ N (ν1T , f (d(T
1
This enables us to select a distribution of expected values ν1T for each µT1 such that Blackwelldominance is preserved.
A non-technical version of the above argument is as follows: In the first period, the signal under
S̃ is better than the signal under S about θ1 . Disregarding the effect on the other states, we can
equivalently think of the signal under S as θ1 + ξ1 and the signal under S̃ as two signals θ1 + ξ1
and θ1 + η1 ; the Gaussian noise terms ξ1 and η1 have appropriate variances and are independent
from the state θ1 and from each other.75 What the deviation strategy S̃ does after the first period
is to “temporarily forget” the extra signal θ1 + η1 and modify the signal choice of S (according to
the mapping G̃) as if it had only observed θ1 + ξ1 . Forgetting is temporary because we require the
DM to remember the extra signal for future updating purposes (as will be clear below).
In the second period, we again view the signals under S̃ and S as θ1 plus independent noise.
The precision of these noise terms are so that the signals in the first two periods combine to yield
the correct posterior variance about θ1 .76 Now if the precision of the second-period signal is higher
under S̃ than under S, we can again think of S̃ as generating an extra signal in the second period
than S, and in that case S̃ can continue to “temporarily forget” this extra signal when deciding
future information acquisition. However, we are only guaranteed that the cumulative precision of
signals under S̃ is higher than under S. Thus, it is possible that the precision of the second-period
signal is in fact lower under the deviation strategy S̃.
Then, it will be the case that strategy S observes θ1 + ξ1 in the first period and two signals
75

The variance of ξ is such that the DM’s posterior variance about θ1 given θ1 + ξ1 is f (d(1)); thus the
1
1
1
1
precision of ξ is f (d(1))
− f (0)
. Similarly, the precision of η1 is f (d̃(1))
− f (d(1))
.

1
1
1
1
The precisions are f (d(2))
− f (d(1))
under S and f (d̃(2))
− f (d̃(1))
under S̃. Their difference is the precision
of η2 (in the next paragraph), and it is lower than the precision of η1 derived previously.
76

45

θ1 + ξ2 , θ1 + η2 in the second period. On the other hand, the deviation strategy S̃ observes two
signals θ1 + ξ1 , θ1 + η1 in the first period and only one signal θ1 + ξ2 in the second period. We note
that by f (d̃(2)) ≤ f (d(2)), the precision of η1 must be higher than η2 . Thus, the signal θ1 + η1 is
equivalent to two further signals θ1 + η2 and θ1 + η̂1 . Under strategy S̃, the DM observes these
signals in the first period, “temporarily forgets” them in choosing the second-period signal, but
later “retrieves” the signal value of θ1 + η2 so as to maintain the same amount of information
obtained under S̃ as under S.77 He then modify the signal choice S in the third period, so on and
so forth.
In summary, the assumption that f (d̃(T )) ≤ f (d(T )) tells us that the deviation strategy S̃
generates cumulatively more information (about θ1 ) than S. This is weaker than the statement
that S̃ generates more information than S in every period, hence we cannot directly extend Blackwell’s insight by letting the DM “permanently forget” the extra information he receives under S̃.
Nonetheless, our assumption on cumulative information does ensure that the same information is
received “earlier” under S̃ than under S. We use this observation to let the DM “temporarily
forget” the extra information under S̃, but later “retrieve” it whenever necessary. This turns out
to be sufficient to show that S̃ is a profitable deviation. We now present the formal proof.
Proof of Lemma 7. We follow the above proof outline and construct a deviation strategy S̃ as
follows:
In the first period, consider the signal choice under S. This signal leads to a division d(1). We
˜
let (0, d(1))
= G(0, d(1)). The deviation strategy S̃ observes the unique signal that would achieve
˜ after the first period.
the division d(1)
After the first observation, the DM’s distribution of posterior beliefs about θ1 under strategy S is
θ1 ∼ N (µ11 , f (d(1))) with µ11 a normal random variable with mean µ01 and variance f (0) − f (d(1)).
˜
By comparison, the distribution of beliefs under S̃ is θ1 ∼ N (ν11 , f (d(1)))
with ν11 drawn from
˜
Since f (d̃(1)) ≤ f (d(1)), the latter distribution of beliefs (under S̃) is
N (µ01 , f (0) − f (d(1))).
Blackwell more informative. Thus in fact, we can associate each belief θ1 ∼ N (µ11 , f (d(1))) under
˜
under S̃. Specifically, for fixed µ11 ,
S with a more informative distribution of beliefs N (ν11 , f (d(1)))
1
1
1
the distribution of associated ν1 should be ν1 ∼ N (µ1 , f (d(1)) − f (d̃(1))). We say this distribution
of (payoff-relevant) beliefs under S̃ “imitates” the belief (µ11 , f (d(1))) under S. By construction,
this distribution of ν11 occurs under S̃ with the same probability as µ11 occurs under S.
The likelihood of ν11 given µ11 , the probability of µ11 occurring under S and the probability
of ν11 occurring under S̃ together determine the likelihood of µ11 given ν11 , which is a Gaussian
probability kernel p(µ11 | ν11 ). In the second period, the deviation strategy S̃ takes the current
˜
belief (ν11 , f (d(1)))
and randomly selects some µ11 to “imitate”, with probability given by p. To be
specific, given any selection of µ11 , we find the signal that S is going to observe in the second period
given belief (µ11 , f (d(1))). This signal choice under S leads to a sequence of divisions (0, d(1), d(2)),
˜
˜
which is mapped to (0, d(1),
d(2))
under G̃. We let S̃ observe a signal in the second period that
˜
would achieve the division d(2). By the consistency of G̃, this signal is in fact unique.
Let us now fix µ11 and study the distribution of posterior beliefs about θ1 after two observations.
Under S, the posterior belief is θ1 ∼ N (µ21 , f (d(2))) with µ21 normally distributed with mean µ11
and variance f (d(1)) − f (d(2)). Under the deviation strategy S̃, the distribution of posterior beliefs
78
˜
˜
with ν 2 drawn from N (µ1 , f (d(1)) − f (d(2))).
is θ1 ∼ (ν 2 , f (d(2)))
1

1

1

77

At the end of two periods, the DM has not yet “retrieved” θ1 + η̂1 .
Here we use the following technical result: suppose the DM is endowed with a distribution of prior beliefs
θ ∼ N (µ, V ), with µ1 normally distributed with mean y and variance σ 2 , then upon observing signal i and
performing Bayesian updating, his distribution of posterior beliefs is θ ∼ N (µ̂, φi (V )), with µ̂1 normally
78

46

˜
Since f (d(2))
≤ f (d(2)), the distribution of beliefs under S̃ Blackwell-dominates the distribution under S, for each µ11 . We can thus associate each history (µ11 , d(1); µ21 , d(2)) under S with a
˜
˜
distribution of histories (ν11 , d(1);
ν12 , d(2))
under S̃ such that the corresponding beliefs under S̃ are
more informative at both periods. This procedure can be repeated in the third period, ad infinitum.
The upshot is that each infinite history h under S is associated with a distribution of histories h̃
under S̃ (occurring with the same probability). At every period t, the DM’s belief about θ1 along
the history h is his average belief across the distribution of histories h̃, so that his average payoff
across these histories is weakly higher (and strictly so with positive probability). Integrating over
different histories h shows that S̃ improves upon S, proving the Lemma.
F.2

Switch Deviations

In what follows, we will apply Lemma 7 with a particular class of mappings G̃. Consider any
sequence of divisions (d∗ (0), d∗ (1), . . . , d∗ (t0 )). Let i be the signal observed in period t0 and j be
any other signal. An “(i, j)-switch” mapping G̃ specifies the following:
1. Suppose T < t0 or d(t) 6= d∗ (t) for some t ≤ t0 , then let G̃(d(0), . . . , d(T )) be itself.
˜ ) = (di (T ) − 1, dj (T ) +
2. Suppose T ≥ t0 , d(t) = d∗ (t), ∀t ≤ t0 . If dj (T ) = dj (t0 ), then let d(T
˜ ) = d(T ).
1, d−ij (T )). If dj (T ) > dj (t0 ), then let d(T
(i, j)-switch

s s s s s . . . st0 −1
|1 2 3 4 {z 5
}

Signals match divisions d∗ (0), . . . , d∗ (t0 − 1)

Xi st0 +1 . . .
{z
|

sτ −1 Xj sτ +1 . . .
}

None of these are Xj

Figure 1: Pictorial representation of an (i, j)-switch based on a sequence of divisions d∗ (0), . . . , d∗ (t0 ).

This definition is easier to interpret if we think about the resulting deviation strategy S̃ constructed in the proof of Lemma 7. The first case above says that S̃ only deviates when the history
of divisions is d∗ (0), . . . , d∗ (t0 − 1), and S is about to observe signal i in period t0 . The second
case says that S̃ dictates observing signal j instead at that history. Subsequently, the DM under S̃
observes the same signal as S (at the belief under S that is being imitated) until the first period at
which S is about to observe signal j. If that period exists, the deviation strategy S̃ switches back
to observing signal i and agrees with S afterwards.
The benefit of “switch deviations” is that their posterior variances are easily compared with
˜ = d(t) except at a history that extends (d∗ (0), d∗ (1), . . . , d∗ (t0 − 1)) (and
the original strategy: d(t)
˜
before signal j is observed again under S). And at such histories, f (d(t))
< f (d(t)) iff the discrete
partial derivatives satisfy:
|∂i f (di (t) − 1, dj (t), d−ij (t))| < |∂j f (di (t) − 1, dj (t), d−ij (t))|.

(21)

Thus S is not dynamically optimal whenever we can find a realized division d(t0 ) under S, such
that di (t0 ) = di (t0 − 1) + 1 (so that signal i is observed under S in period t0 ) and the inequality
(21) holds for all t ≥ t0 and dj (t) = dj (t0 ).
distributed with mean y and variance σ 2 + [V ]11 − [φi (V )]11 . This is proved by observing that the DM’s
distribution of beliefs about θ1 must integrate to the same ex-ante distribution of θ1 .

47

F.3

Proof of Proposition 3 Part (c)

We now derive the asymptotic ratios for any dynamically optimal strategy S. We will show that
any realized division d(t) satisfies |di (t) − λi t| ≤ N , where the constant N depends only on the
informational environment but not on the decision problem or the particular strategy S.
We first show that as T → ∞, d1 (T ), . . . , dK (T ) → ∞, and the speed of divergence depends only
on the informational environment. For contradiction, suppose the result is not true. Then we can
find a sequence of histories {hTm } such that Tm → ∞ but d1 (Tm ) remains bounded. These histories
need not nest one another. By passing to a subsequence, we may assume qi = limm→∞ di (Tm ) exists
for every signal i, and qi = ∞ for a proper subset of signals i ∈ I. We further assume that the
signal i∗ observed in the last period of each history hTm is the same, and it belongs to I—otherwise,
we simply truncate the history by finitely many periods.
Choose j ∗ ∈
/ I to be a signal that has positive marginal value (satisfying Assumption 4). We
claim that for sufficiently large Tm , the (i∗ , j ∗ )-switch deviation S̃ following history hTm −1 (the
first Tm − 1 periods of hTm ) satisfies (21) with t0 = Tm . This will contradict the optimality of S.
To prove this claim, observe that as Tm → ∞, di∗ (Tm ) → ∞ because i∗ ∈ I. Since we are only
concerned with the inequality (21) for di∗ (t) ≥ di∗ (Tm ), the LHS of (21) becomes vanishingly small.
In contrast, the RHS is bounded away from zero by Assumption 4.79 Hence we have verified (21)
and derived a contradiction to the optimality of S.
Next, as d1 (t), . . . , dK (t) → ∞, the following approximations hold (see (16)):
σ 2 · [Qi ]11
|∂i f (di (t) − 1, dj (t), d−ij (t))| ∼ i
di (t)2

|∂j f (di (t) − 1, dj (t), d−ij (t))| ∼

σj2 · [Qj ]11
dj (t)2

p
λi
0)
If lim supt0 →∞ ddji (t
[Qi ]11 ), then the above estimates
(t0 ) > λj (recall that λi is proportional to σi ·
imply (21) whenever di (t) ≥ di (t0 ) (because t ≥ t0 ) and dj (t) = dj (t0 ), contradicting the optimality
di (t0 )
λi
0)
of S. Hence, lim supt0 →∞ ddji (t
(t0 ) ≤ λj for any pair of signals i, j, so that limt0 →∞ t0 = λi , ∀i.
Once this is established, it follows that the matrix Σ = CV 0 C ′ + D −1 converges to CV 0 C ′ at
the rate of 1t . By (16), we can deduce more precise approximations:
σj2 · [Qj ]11 + O( 1t )
|∂j f (di (t) − 1, · · · )| =
dj (t)2

σ 2 · [Qi ]11 + O( 1t )
|∂i f (di (t) − 1, · · · )| = i
di (t)2
If

di (t0 )
dj (t0 )

>

λi
λj

+ O( t10 ), then these refined estimates would again imply (21) whenever di (t) ≥ di (t0 )

0)
and dj (t) = dj (t0 ). We conclude that ddji (t
(t0 ) ≤
we deduce di (t0 ) = λi · t0 + O(1) as desired.

F.4

λi
λj

+ O( t10 ). Since this holds for every pair of signals,

Proof of Theorem 1 Parts (b) and (c)

(b) Here we establish the “eventual gap of one” between dynamic and total optimality. Let us
suppose for contradiction that at a large time T , dj (T ) ≤ nj (T ) − 2 and di (T ) ≥ ni (T ) + 1 holds
for some realized division d(T ) under a dynamically optimal strategy S. Let t0 ≤ T be the last
period along this history (leading to the division d(T )) in which signal i was observed. Consider
the (i, j)-switch deviation S̃ that begins in that period. We will verify the inequality (21), which
will contradict the optimality of S.
79

While the statement of Assumption 4 in the main text requires qj ∗ = 0, it actually implies that signal
j has positive marginal value for any given number of past observations qj ∗ = dj ∗ (Tm ).
∗

48

Getting rid of absolute values, we need to show for t ≥ t0 , di (t) ≥ di (t0 ) and dj (t) = dj (t0 ),
∂i (di (t) − 1, dj (t), d−ij (t)) > ∂j (di (t) − 1, dj (t), d−ij (t)).

(22)

By the total optimality of n(T ), we have
∂i (ni (T ), nj (T ) − 1, n−ij (T )) ≥ ∂j (ni (T ), nj (T ) − 1, n−ij (T )).

(23)

Our goal is to show (23) implies (22).
From (23) to (22), the LHS at most decreases by some cross partials. This is because di (t) ≥
di (t0 ) = di (T ) ≥ ni (T ) + 1, where the middle equality is due to the definition of t0 . Moreover, we
claim that the difference between T and t is bounded above by a constant. In one direction, since
di (t0 ) = di (T ), the asymptotic characterization implies T − t0 is bounded above and so is T − t
whenever t ≥ t0 . In the other direction, since dj (t) = dj (t0 ), we have t − t0 is bounded above. Thus
t − T ≤ t − t0 is also bounded above. It follows that the LHS of (22) decreases from the LHS of
(23) by a bounded number of cross partials.
In contrast, the RHS of (22) is smaller than the RHS of (23) by at least a second derivative ∂jj f
less some cross partials, because dj (t) = dj (t0 ) ≤ dj (T ) ≤ nj (T ) − 2. Because the second derivative
eventually dominates the combined effects of cross partials, we are able to deduce (22) from (23)
for sufficiently large T and any t ≥ t0 .80 We have thus proved (21) assuming dj (T ) ≤ nj (T ) − 2,
contradicting the optimality of S. A symmetric argument rules out dj (T ) ≥ nj (T ) + 2 (and
di (T ) ≤ ni (T ) − 1).

(c) We follow the preceding proof and consider a history hT where dj (T ) ≤ mj (T ) − 2 and di (T ) ≥
mi (T ) + 1. Define t0 and the (i, j)-switch deviation S̃ as before. To obtain a contradiction, we will
verify (22) for t ≥ t0 , di (t) ≥ di (t0 ) and dj (t) = dj (t0 ).
Let T ∗ ≤ T be the last period in which the myopic DM observed signal j. Then it holds that
∂i (mi (T ∗ ), mj (T ∗ ) − 1, m−ij (T ∗ )) ≥ ∂j (mi (T ∗ ), mj (T ∗ ) − 1, m−ij (T ∗ ))

(24)

because signal j was myopically better than signal i in period T ∗ .
Note that di (t) ≥ di (t0 ) = di (T ) ≥ mi (T ) + 1 ≥ mi (T ∗ ) + 1, while dj (t) = dj (t0 ) ≤ dj (T ) ≤
mj (T ) − 2 = mj (T ∗ ) − 2. Thus essentially the same argument as in the proof of Part (b) enables
us to deduce (22) from (24), contradicting the optimality of S. A symmetric argument rules out
dj (T ) ≥ nj (T ) + 2 and di (T ) ≤ ni (T ) − 1. Theorem 1 is now completely proved.

G

Proof of Theorem 2 (Generic Eventual Equivalence)

To guide the reader through this appendix, we begin by outlining the proof of the theorem, which
is broken down into several steps. We first show a simpler result that in generic informational
environments, the number of periods in which the three optimality criteria coincide has natural
density 1. While this is weaker than the desired Theorem 2, it already rules out situations such as
Example 4, where any strategy fails to achieve total optimality in one-third of the periods. Our
proof of this result is based on the observation that if equivalence does not hold at some time t,
there must be two different divisions over signals for which the resulting posterior variances about
θ1 are within O( t14 ) from each other. This leads to a Diophantine approximation inequality, which
we can show only occurs at a vanishing fraction of periods t.
80

Since the constants in Proposition 3 and in the order difference lemma only depend on the informational
environment, so does T .

49

To improve the result and demonstrate equivalence at “all large periods,” we show that the
number of “exceptional periods” t is generically finite if there are three different divisions over
signals whose posterior variances are within O( t14 ) from each other. This allows us to conclude that
in generic environments, the totally optimal divisions eventually monotonically increase (in each
coordinate) over time.
In such environments, total optimality can be achieved at every late period. Thus, whenever
total optimality obtains in some late period, it will be sustained in all future periods. Since we
have already established that a myopic or dynamically optimal strategy achieves total optimality
infinitely often, we conclude equivalence at all large t.
G.1

Equivalence at Almost All Times

We begin by proving a weaker result. Proposition 4 below shows equivalence at almost all times.
Proposition 4. Suppose the informational environment (V 0 , C, {σi2 }) is such that for any i 6= j, the
ratio λλji is an irrational number. Then, at a set of times with natural density 1,81 m(t) = n(t) = d(t)
holds for any decision problem. In particular, the dynamically optimal division d(t) is deterministic
and independent of the decision problem at these times.
Proof of Proposition 4. Suppose that m1 (t) ≤ n1 (t) − 1, m2 (t) ≥ n2 (t) + 1. Consider the last
period t̃ in which the myopic strategy observes signal 2. Write m̃i = mi (t̃) and ni = ni (t). Then
m̃1 ≤ m1 (t) ≤ n1 − 1 and m̃2 = m2 (t) ≥ n2 + 1.82
From the total optimality of n(t) and myopic optimality of m(t̃), we have the following inequalities regarding the discrete partial derivatives:
∂2 f (n1 − 1, n2 , . . . , nK ) ≥ ∂1 f (n1 − 1, n2 , . . . , nK ).

(25)

∂2 f (m̃1 , m̃2 − 1, . . . , m̃K ) ≤ ∂1 f (m̃1 , m̃2 − 1, . . . , m̃K ).

(26)

Since m̃2 − 1 ≤ n2 , the LHS of (26) is smaller than the LHS of (25) by (at most) a number of
cross partials. Similarly, the RHS of (26) is at most bigger than the RHS of by a number of cross
partials. These observations together with the order difference lemma imply that the two sides of
(25) differ by at most O t14 .
To summarize: a necessary condition for m1 (t) ≤ n1 (t) − 1, m2 (t) ≥ n2 (t) + 1 to occur is that
 
1
(27)
|f (n1 − 1, n2 + 1, . . . , nK ) − f (n1 , n2 , . . . , nK )| = O 4 .
t
Likewise, we can deduce that (27) is also a necessary condition for d1 (t) ≤ n1 (t) − 1, d2 (t) ≥
n2 (t) + 1 to occur (see the proof of Theorem 1 Part (b), in Appendix F). Hence, to prove the
Proposition we only need to show that (27) only holds at a set of times with natural density 0. The
following lemma proves exactly this property.
Lemma 8. Suppose λλ12 is an irrational number. For positive constants c0 , c1 , define A(c0 , c1 ) to be
the following set of positive integers:
{t : ∃ q1 , q2 , . . . , qK ∈ Z+ , s.t. |qi − λi t| ≤ c0 , ∀i

∧ |f (q1 , q2 + 1, . . . , qK ) − f (q1 + 1, q2 , . . . , qK )| ≤ c1 /t4 }.

Then A(c0 , c1 ) has natural density zero.
81

Formally, for any set of positive integers A, let A(N ) count the number of integers in A no greater than
)
N . Then we deinfe the natural density of A to be limN →∞ A(N
N , when this limit exists.
82
This analysis resembles the proof of Theorem 1 Part (a), in Appendix E.

50

Proof of Lemma 8. The proof relies on the following technical result, which gives a precise approximation of the discrete partial derivatives of f :
Lemma 9. Fix the informational environment. There exists a constant aj such that



1
; c0
(28)
t4

holds for all q1 , . . . , qK with |qi − λi t| ≤ c0 , ∀i. The notation O t14 ; c0 means an upper bound of tL4 ,
where the constant L may depend on the informational environment as well as on c0 .83
σj2 · [Qj ]11
+O
f (qj , q−j ) − f (qj + 1, q−j ) =
(qj − aj )2

Given (28), we see that the condition
|f (q1 , q2 + 1, . . . , qK ) − f (q1 + 1, q2 , . . . , qK )| ≤
implies

σ12 ·[Q1 ]11
(q1 −a1 )2

−

σ22 ·[Q2 ]11
(q2 −a2 )2

≤

c2
t4

1
2
and thus ( q1λ−a
)2 − ( q2λ−a
)2 ≤
1
2

constants c2 , c3 . This further implies

λ1
q1 −a1

−

q 2 − a2 −

λ2
q2 −a2

≤

c4
,
t3

c1
t4

c3
t4

for some larger positive

which reduces to

c5
λ2
(q1 − a1 ) ≤ .
λ1
t

(29)

This inequality says that the fractional part of λλ21 q1 is very close to the fractional part of λλ21 a1 − a2 .
But since λλ21 is an irrational number, the fractional part of λλ12 q1 is “equi-distributed” in (0,1) as q1
ranges in the positive integers.84 Thus the Diophantine approximation (29) only has solution at a
set of times t with natural density 0, proving Lemma 8. Below we supply the technically involved
proof of (28).
Proof of Lemma 9. Fix q1 , . . . , qK and the signal j. Recall that the diagonal matrix D is given by
diag( σq12 , . . . , σqK
2 ). Consider any q̂j ∈ [qj , qj + 1] and let D̂ be the analogue of D for the division
1

K

(q̂j , q−j ). That is, D̂ = D except that [D̂]jj =
∂j f (q̂j , q−j ) = −

q̂j
.
σj2

Let Σ̂ = CV 0 C ′ + D̂ −1 . From (16), we have

i
σj2 h 0 ′ −1
−1
0
·
V
C
Σ̂
∆
Σ̂
CV
.
jj
11
q̂j2

(30)

Here and later in this proof, ∂j f represents the usual continuous derivative rather than the discrete
derivative.


Let D0 = diag λσ12t , . . . , λσK2 t and Σ0 = CV 0 C ′ + D0−1 . For |qi − λi t| ≤ c0 , ∀i we have D̂ − D0 =
1

K

O(c0 ), where the Big O notation applies entry-wise. It follows that
Σ̂ = CV 0 C ′ + D̂ −1 = CV 0 C ′ + D −1 + O(
83

1
1
; c0 ) = Σ0 + O( 2 ; c0 ).
2
t
t

In our application of Lemma 8, c0 is taken to be the constant N in Proposition 3 and thus depends
also on the informational environment. The statement of Lemma 8 is however more general and allows for
arbitrary c0 , c1 .
84
Formally, the Equi-distribution Theorem states that for any irrational number α and any sub-interval
(a, b) ⊂ (0, 1), the set of positive integers n such that the fractional part of αn belongs to (a, b) has natural
density b − a. It is a special case of the Ergodic Theorem.

51

Observe that the matrix inverse is a differentiable mapping at Σ0 (which is CV 0 C ′ + D0−1  CV 0 C ′
and thus positive definite). Thus we have


1
−1
−1
Σ̂ = Σ0 + O 2 ; c0 .
t
Plugging this into (30) and using q̂j ∼ λj t, we obtain that



σj2  0 ′ −1
1
−1
0
∂j f (q̂j , q−j ) = − 2 · V C Σ0 ∆jj Σ0 CV 11 + O 4 ; c0 .
(31)
t
q̂j

 2
2
σK
σ
Since Σ0 = CV 0 C ′ + 1t ·diag λ11 , . . . , λK
, we can apply Taylor expansion (to the matrix inverse
map) and write
 2
 
2 
σ1
1
σK
1
0 ′ −1
0 ′ −1
−1
0 ′ −1
,...,
(32)
· (CV C ) + O 2 .
Σ0 = (CV C ) − (CV C ) · diag
t
λ1
λK
t
This implies
0

V C

′

−1
0
Σ−1
0 ∆jj Σ0 CV

0

′

0

′ −1

= V C (CV C )

0

′ −1

∆jj (CV C )
 
Mj
1
= Qj −
+O 2 ,
t
t

Mj
+O
CV −
t
0



1
t2


(33)

where Mj is a fixed K × K matrix depending only on the informational environment. For future
use, we note that
 2
2 
σK
σ1
0 ′
0 ′ −1
,...,
(CV 0 C ′ )−1 ∆jj (CV 0 C ′ )−1 CV 0
Mj = V C (CV C ) diag
λ1
λK
 2
2 
σK
σ1
0 ′
0 ′ −1
0 ′ −1
+ V C (CV C ) ∆jj (CV C ) diag
,...,
(CV 0 C ′ )−1 CV 0
λ1
λK
 2
2 
σK
σ1
−1
,...,
(CV 0 C ′ )−1 ∆jj C ′−1
= C diag
λ1
λK
 2

σ2
σ1
+ C −1 ∆jj (CV 0 C ′ )−1 diag
, . . . , K C ′−1 .
(34)
λ1
λK
Using (33), we can simplifty (31) to
∂j f (q̂j , q−j ) = −





Mj
1
·
Q
−
;
c
+
O
j
0 .
t 11
t4
q̂j2

σj2

(35)

Integrating this over q̂j ∈ [qj , qj + 1], we conclude that




σj2
Mj
1
· Qj −
+ O 4 ; c0 .
f (qj , q−j ) − f (qj + 1, q−j ) =
qj (qj + 1)
t 11
t


λj ·[Mj ]11
1
We set aj = − 2[Q
+
2 . Then,
j ]11
σj2



Mj
· Qj −
qj (qj + 1)
t



=
11

(σj2

· [Qj ]11 ) ·

52

1+

2aj +1
λj t

qj (qj + 1)

=

σj2 · [Qj ]11
(qj − aj )2

+O




1
; c0 ,
t4

(36)

1+

2aj +1
λj t

implying the desired approximation (28). The last equality above uses qj (qj +1) =

O t14 ; c0 , which is because




qj (qj + 1)
1
1
2(aj + 1)
2aj + 1
=1+
+O
+ O 2 ; c0
=1+
(qj − aj )2
q j − aj
(qj − aj )2
λj t
t

1
(qj −aj )2

+

dividing through by qj (qj + 1).
G.2

A Simultaneous Diophantine Approximation Problem

Lemma 8 tells us that at most times t, there do not exist a pair of divisions (differing minimally
on two signal counts) that lead to posterior variances close to each other (with a difference of ct41 ).
We obtain a stronger result if a triple of such divisions were to exist.
Lemma 10. Fix V 0 and C, and let signal variances vary. For positive constants c0 , c1 , define
A∗ (c0 , c1 ) to be the following set of positive integers:
{t : ∃ q1 , q2 , q3 , . . . , qK ∈ Z+ , s.t. |qi − λi t| ≤ c0 , ∀i

∧ |f (q1 , q2 + 1, q3 , . . . , qK ) − f (q1 + 1, q2 , q3 , . . . , qK )| ≤ c1 /t4

∧ |f (q1 , q2 , q3 + 1, . . . , qK ) − f (q1 + 1, q2 , q3 , . . . , qK )| ≤ c1 /t4 }
Then, except for signal variances belonging to a Lebesgue measure-zero set, A∗ (c0 , c1 ) has finite
cardinality.
Proof. So far we have been dealing with fixed informational environments. However, a number
of parameters defined above depend on the signal variances σ = {σi2 }K
i=1 . Specifically, while the
matrix Qi = C −1 ∆ii C ′−1 is independent of σ, the asymptotic proportions λi ∝ σi · [Qi ]11 do vary
with σ. In this proof, we write λi (σ) to highlight this dependence.
Next, we recall the matrix Mj introduced earlier in (34). We note that for fixed matrices V 0
σ2

σ2

1
, . . . , λKK(σ) .
and C, each entry of Mj (σ) is a fixed linear combination of λ1 (σ)
Then, the parameter aj (σ) in (28) is given by (see the previous proof)

K

K

i=1

i=1

X
σ2
1
1 X
1 λj (σ) · [Mj (σ)]11
b̃ji i = − +
bji σi σj
= − + λj (σ)
aj (σ) = − −
2
2[Qj ]11
2
λi (σ)
2
for some constants b̃ji , bji independent of σ. In the last equality above, we used the fact that
σ
equals a constant times σji .
Thus Lemma 9 gives


σj2 · [Qj ]11
1
+ O 4 ; c0
f (qj , q−j ) − f (qj + 1, q−j ) =
(qj − aj (σ))2
t

(37)
λj (σ)
λi (σ)

whenever |qi − λi (σ) · t| ≤ c0 , ∀i. We comment that the Big O constant here may depend on σ.
However, a single constant suffices if we restrict each σi to be bounded above and bounded away
from zero. Since measure-zero sets are closed under countable unions, this restriction does not
affect the result we want to prove.
By the above approximation, a necessary condition for t ∈ A∗ (c0 , c1 ) is that q1 , q2 , q3 satisfy
(q2 − a2 (σ)) −

c6
η · σ2
(q1 − a1 (σ)) ≤
σ1
q1

53

(38)

as well as
(q3 − a3 (σ)) −

κ · σ3
c6
(q1 − a1 (σ)) ≤
σ1
q1

(39)

for some constant p
c6 independent of σ (c6 may depend on c0 , c1 stated in the lemma). The constant
η is given by η = [Q2 ]11 /[Q1 ]11 , and similarly for κ.

It remains to show that for generic σ, there are only finitely many positive integer triples
(q1 , q2 , q3 ) satisfying the simultaneous Diophantine approximation (38) and (39). To prove this,
we assume that each σi is i.i.d. drawn from the uniform distribution on [ L1 , L], where L is a large
constant.85 Denote by F (q1 , q2 , q3 ) the event that (38) and (39) hold simultaneously. We claim that
there exists a constant c7 such that P(F (q1 , q2 , q3 )) ≤ qc74 holds for all q1 , q2 , q3 . Since F (q1 , q2 , q3 )
1
cannot occur for q2 , q3 > c8 q1 , this claim will imply
X

P(F (q1 , q2 , q3 )) <

X

X

q1 q2 ,q3 ≤c8 q1

q1 ,q2 ,q3

X c7 c2
c7
8
<
2 < ∞.
q14
q
1
q

(40)

1

Generic finiteness of tuples (q1 , q2 , q3 ) will then follow from the Borel-Cantelli Lemma.86
To prove this claim, it suffices to show that if σ = (σ1 , σ2 , σ3 , σ4 , . . . , σK ) and σ ′ = (σ1 , σ2′ , σ3′ , σ4 , . . . , σK )
both satisfy (38) and (39), then |σ2 − σ2′ |, |σ3 − σ3′ | ≤ qc2 for some constant c.87 Without loss, we
1

assume |σ2 − σ2′ | ≥ |σ3 − σ3′ |. Using (37), we can rewrite the condition (38) as



 X
c6
1
1
η · σ2
q2 +
q1 +
−
+
βi σ2 σi ≤
2
σ1
2
q1
|
{z
} | i {z }
A

B

for some constants βi independent of σ. A similar inequality holds at σ ′ :


 X

1
η · σ2′
c6
1
+
βi σ2′ σi′ ≤
q1 +
−
q2 +
2
σ1
2
q1
|
{z
} | i {z }
A′

B′

6
It follows from the above two inequalities that |A + B − A′ − B ′ | ≤ 2c
q1 . Furthermore, since
′
′
′
′
|A − A | ≤ |A + B − A − B | + |B − B | (by triangle inequality), we deduce



X
1
2c6
η · (σ2′ − σ2 )
βi (σ2′ σi′ − σ2 σi )
· q1 +
+
≤
σ1
2
q1

(41)

i

85

The uniform distribution most directly implies the Lemma regarding Lebesgue measure zero, but any
other continuous distribution is equally fine for this argument.
86
Because of the use of Borel-Cantelli Lemma, this proof (unlike Lemma 8 above) does not allow us to effectively determine, for given σ, whether (38) and (39) only have finitely many integer solutions. Nonetheless,
a modification of this proof does imply the following finite-time probabilistic statement: when σ1 , . . . , σK are
independently drawn, the probability that myopic, dynamic and total optimality coincide at every period
t ≥ T is at least 1 − O( T1 ), where the constant involved only depends on the distribution of σ.
87
This implies that the probability of the event F (q1 , q2 , q3 ) conditional on any value of σ1 , σ4 , . . . , σK is
bounded by qc74 , which is stronger than the claim.
1

54

Because σi′ = σi for i 6= 2, 3, we have
X
i

βi (σ2′ σi′ − σ2 σi ) =

X

=

i

βi (σ2′ − σ2 )σi +

X
i

βi (σ2′ − σ2 )σi

X

!

i

βi σ2′ (σi′ − σi )

+ β2 σ2′ (σ2′ − σ2 ) + β3 σ2′ (σ3′ − σ3 )

≤ (K + 2)L · max |βi | · σ2′ − σ2
i

Plugging this estimate into (41), we obtain the desired result |σ2 − σ2′ | ≤
proof of the lemma.
G.3

c
.
q12

This completes the

Monotonicity of Totally Optimal Divisions

We apply Lemma 10 to prove the eventual monotonicity of totally optimal divisions in generic
informational environments.
Lemma 11. Fix V 0 and C. For generic signal variances {σi2 }K
i=1 , there exists T0 such that for
t ≥ T0 , the totally optimal division n(t) is unique, and it satisfies ni (t + 1) ≥ ni (t), ∀i.
Proof. Uniqueness follows from the stronger fact that in generic informational environments, f (q1 , . . . , qK )
′ ) whenever q 6= q ′ . This is because any such equality corresponds to a nondiffers from f (q1′ , . . . , qK
trivial polynomial equation over σ, and there are only countably many of them to be ruled out.
Using the order difference lemma, we can already deduce |ni (tP
+ 1) − ni (t)| ≤ 1, ∀i at sufficiently
large times t. Suppose that n1 (t + 1) = n1 (t) − 1. Then because i (ni (t + 1) − ni (t)) = 1, we can
without loss assume n2 (t + 1) = n2 (t) + 1 and n3 (t + 1) = n3 (t) + 1.
For notational ease, write ni = ni (t), n′i = ni (t + 1). By total optimality, we have
f (n1 − 1, n2 + 1, n3 , . . . , nK ) ≥ f (n1 , n2 , n3 , . . . , nK )
f (n′1 , n′2 , n′3 , . . . , n′K ) ≤ f (n′1 + 1, n′2 − 1, n′3 , . . . , n′K )
These inequalities are equivalent to
∂2 f (n1 − 1, n2 , n3 , . . . , nK ) ≥ ∂1 f (n1 − 1, n2 , n3 , . . . , nK )

(42)

∂2 f (n′1 , n′2 − 1, n′3 , . . . , n′K ) ≤ ∂1 f (n′1 , n′2 − 1, n′3 , . . . , n′K )

(43)

with ∂i f representing the discrete partial derivative.
Since n′2 − 1 = n2 , the LHS of (43) is at most smaller than the LHS of (42) by a number of cross
partials. Similarly, the RHS of (43) is at most bigger than the RHS of (42) by a number of cross
partials. Thus the two sides of (42) cannot differ by more than O( t14 ). That is, for some constant
c1 we have88
c1
(44)
|f (n1 − 1, n2 + 1, n3 , . . . , nK ) − f (n1 , n2 , n3 , . . . , nK )| ≤ 4 .
t
An analogous argument using n′1 = n1 − 1 and n′3 = n3 + 1 yields
|f (n1 − 1, n2 , n3 + 1, . . . , nK ) − f (n1 , n2 , n3 , . . . , nK )| ≤
88

c1
.
t4

(45)

As discussed in the proof of Lemma 10, we can find a single constant c1 that works for all σ bounded
above and bounded away from zero.

55

Moreover, from Proposition 3, there is a constant c0 such that
|ni − λi t| ≤ c0 , ∀i.

(46)

Now, Lemma 10 says that in generic environments, there are only finitely many integer solutions
(n1 , . . . , nK ) to (44), (45) and (46). This proves what we want.
G.4

Completing the Proof of Theorem 2

By Lemma 11, generically there exists T0 such that n(t) is monotonic over time in each signal for
t ≥ T0 . If a myopic or forward-looking DM achieves total optimality at some time t ≥ T0 , he can
and thus will continue to do so at every future time (because such a strategy maximizes the payoff
in every period). Thanks to Proposition 4, such a time t exists. The theorem is proved.

H

Proof of Theorem 3 (Batch of Signals)

Observing B signals each period is the same as planning B periods at once in the original model. Let
us use the latter interpretation and show that the totally optimal division is eventually increasing
every B periods, whenever B ≥ K − 1. This is because by the order difference lemma, if t is large
89
and ni (t + B) ≤ ni (t)− 1 for some signal i, then nj (t + B) ≤ nj (t)+
P1 for every other signal j. But
these inequalities would together imply B = (ni (t + B) − ni (t)) + j6=i (nj (t + B) − nj (t)) ≤ K − 2,
leading to a contradiction.
For sufficiently large B, it is clear that these totally optimal divisions are monotone from the
beginning. Thus any myopic strategy can and thus will achieve total optimality and dynamic
optimality.

I

Equivalence Results for K = 2

I.1

Immediate Equivalence with Complementary Signals

When there are only two states and two signals, immediate equivalence holds for a broad class of
environments:90
Proposition 5. Suppose K = 2, the prior is standard Gaussian (V 0 = I2 ), and both signals
a b
have variance 1.91 Write C =
and assume without loss that |ad| ≥ |bc|. Then myopic,
c d
dynamic and total optimality coincide from period 1 whenever the following inequality holds:
(1 + 2b2 ) · |ad − bc| ≥ |ad + bc|.

(47)

In particular, this is true whenever abcd ≤ 0.
89

The argument is similar to (18), which we omit.
In the proposition below, if the linear coefficients a, b, c, d were picked at random, then with probability
1
2 we would have abcd ≤ 0. Immediate equivalence follows.
91
We make these simplifying assumptions on prior and signal variances so that the condition for equivalence
is easy to state and interpret. They are not essential in any way.
90

56

Proof. Under the assumptions, the DM’s posterior variance about θ1 is computed to be
f (q1 , q2 ) =

1 + b2 q1 + d2 q2
1 + (a2 + b2 )q1 + (c2 + d2 )q2 + (ad − bc)2 q1 q2

Given qi observations of each signal i in the past, a myopic DM chooses signal 1 if and only if
f (q1 + 1, q2 ) < f (q1 , q2 + 1), which reduces to
(ad − bc)2 b2 q12 + (1 + b2 )(ad − bc)2 q1 − (a2 d2 − b2 c2 )q1 + c2 (1 + b2 )

<(ad − bc)2 d2 q22 + (1 + d2 )(ad − bc)2 q2 + (a2 d2 − b2 c2 )q2 + a2 (1 + d2 )

(48)

The condition |ad| ≥ |bc| ensures that the RHS is an increasing function of q2 , because the coefficients in front of q22 and q2 are both positive. Meanwhile, the condition (1 + 2b2 )|ad − bc| ≥ |ad + bc|
implies the LHS is larger when q1 = 1 than when q1 = 0, so that the LHS is increasing in (integer
values of) q1 . Thus, the proof of Lemma 1 extends without change.92 Any myopic strategy is
totally optimal and dynamically optimal.
To interpret, (47) requires that the determinant of the matrix C, ad − bc, to be not too small
(holding other terms constant). Put differently, the two vectors (in R2 ) defining the signals should
not be close to collinear. This rules out situations where the two signals provide such similar
information in the initial periods that they substitute one another.93
I.2

Eventual Equivalence

Even when immediate equivalence does not obtain, the signal paths under myopic, dynamic and
total optimality are eventually exactly identical for the case of K = 2. This holds for arbitrary
prior beliefs and signals, not just generically (c.f. Theorem 2).
Theorem 6. Suppose K = 2 and suppose the informational environment satisfies Assumption 3.94
There exists a large time T ∗ such that the following holds: any myopic division m(t) is totally
optimal at times t ≥ T ∗ , and so is any dynamically optimal division d(t) for any decision problem.
That is, when K = 2, any myopic or dynamically optimal strategy achieves total optimality after
finitely many periods.95
A key step of the proof is to show that when K = 2, the “constrained totally optimal divisions”
(see Definition 6 in Appendix C) are eventually monotonic, so that payoff can (and thus will) be
minimized period by period.
Lemma 12. Fix an informational environment (V 0 , C, {σi2 }) with K = 2. There exists H ∗ such
that for any history h with signal counts H1 , H2 ≥ H ∗ , the constrained totally optimal divisions
following h satisfy nhi (t + 1) ≥ nhi (t), ∀i, ∀t ≥ H.
92

Specifically, after a one-shot deviation from signal 1 to signal 2, the deviation path keeps observing signal
1 until the first time the original myopic path observes signal 2. The same exchangeability argument then
shows that the posterior variances along the deviation path are uniformly larger than the original path.
93
For example, when a = 3, b = 1, c = 5, d = 2, it can be shown that the myopic path begins with
BXXXXXXXXX, while the dynamically optimal path (for the prediction problem and δ = 0.9) is to
observe XXXXXXXXXB. Lemma 1 fails here because following a one-shot deviation from B to X in the
first period, the DM finds it myopically better to continue observing X rather than B, as f (2, 0) < f (1, 1).
This suggests strong substitution between the two signals so that deviating to X in the first period decreases
the marginal value of signal B even more than it does signal X.
94
Recall that Assumption 4 is always satisfied when K = 2
95
We do not state the result as m(t) = d(t) = n(t) because these divisions need not be unique.

57

Proof of Lemma 12. We first show that the unconstrained totally optimal divisions are monotonic
for t ≥ 2H ∗ .96 Let (n1 , n2 ) be the totally optimal division at time t. Then by Proposition 3, the
totally optimal division at time t + 1 is n1 + b + 1, n2 − b for some bounded integer b. Without loss
assume b ≥ 0, then we need to show b is in fact equal to zero. This is because for fixed b ≥ 1,
f (n1 + 1, n2 − 1) ≥ f (n1 , n2 ) =⇒ f (n1 + b + 1, n2 − b) > f (n1 + b, n2 + 1 − b)

(49)

as n1 , n2 increase to ∞ proportionally. The proof of this uses the order difference lemma, similar
to (18), so we omit it. Since the LHS of (49) holds by total optimality, we deduce that the
unconstrained totally optimal divisions are indeed increasing over time.
Let us turn to the constrained divisions. Fix a history h with length H ≥ 2H ∗ . If nh (H)
is unconstrained totally optimal, then by monotonicity, any future unconstrained totally optimal
division satisfies the constraints. Thus nh (t) is unconstrained totally optimal at all t ≥ H. The
conclusion of the lemma holds in this case.
Otherwise, suppose without loss that H1 < n1 (H) and H2 > n2 (H). This means the DM has
observed an excess of signal 2 than optimal. Denote by T > H the first time at which n2 (T ) = H2 ;
such a time exists because n2 (t) increases by 0 or 1 each time. We claim that for H ≤ t < T ,
nh (t) = (t − H2 , H2 ), and for t ≥ T , nh (t) = n(t). This will prove the lemma.
Intuitively, the claim says that the DM should keep observing signal 1 until its signal count
catches up with the unconstrained optimum. To prove it formally, we note from the convexity
(single-peakedness) of f that
f (n1 (t), n2 (t)) < f (t − H2 , H2 ) =⇒

f (t − H2 , H2 ) < f (t − q2 , q2 ), ∀q2 > H2 > n2 (t).

By the choice of T , we have n2 (t) < H2 for t ∈ [H, T ). Thus the above display implies nh (t) = (t −
H2 , H2 ) is the constrained optimum at such times t. For larger t, the unconstrained totally optimal
division satisfies the constraints. Hence the constrained optimum must also be an unconstrained
optimum, proving the claim and the lemma.
With Lemma 12, we can quickly prove Theorem 6 as follows. The lemma implies that following
any history h with Hi ≥ H ∗ , a myopic continuation strategy can, and thus will, achieve constrained
total optimality at every time. Such a strategy maximizes the flow payoff in every period following
h, so it is dynamically optimal. By Proposition 3, Hi ≥ H ∗ holds along the myopic and dynamically
optimal signal paths whenever the history h is sufficiently long. Moreover, any constrained optimum
eventually becomes unconstrained optimum. Theorem 6 is proved.

J

Examples Without Eventual Equivalence

J.1

Myopic Not Totally Optimal Infinitely Often

Here we continue to study Example 4 presented in the main text. Consider the totally optimal
division at time t. The payoff function in (6) suggests that the problem can be separated into
two parts: choosing qX , and allocating the remaining observations between q1 and q2 . The latter
allocation problem is identical to the benchmark case—an optimal division between signals B1 and
B2 satisfies q2 = q1 − 1 or q2 = q1 . With some extra algebra, we obtain that for N ≥ 1:
96

Together with Proposition 4, this monotonicity is sufficient to prove Theorem 6 under the extra assumption that λ1 /λ2 is an irrational number. Our proof below does not rely on this assumption.

58

1. If t = 3N + 1, then the unique totally optimal division (qX , q1 , q2 ) is (N + 2, N, N − 1);
2. If t = 3N + 2, then the unique totally optimal division is (N + 3, N, N − 1);
3. If t = 3N + 3, then the unique totally optimal division is (N + 2, N + 1, N ).
Crucially, note that when transitioning from t = 3N + 2 to t = 3N + 3, the totally optimal
number of X signals is decreased. This reflects the complementarity between signals B1 and B2 ,
which causes the DM to observe them in pairs. Due to this failure of monotonicity, total optimality
at all large times is unattainable.97
J.2

Myopic Not Dynamically Optimal

Next, we provide another example in which, for any positive discount factor δ, the myopic division
differs from the dynamically optimal division at infinitely many periods. The setup is almost the
same as Example 4, except that the noise term ǫX has variance 2. The DM has posterior variance
about θ given by
1
(50)
f (qX , q1 , q2 ) = 1 −
2
1
1 + qX + 1 − 1+ 1 +
1
q1

1+q2

The change from the previous example is that q2X appears in the denominator, rather than q1X .
As in the analysis of the previous example, there will be times t̂ − 1 and t̂ at which the totally
optimal division transitions from (M, N, N − 1) to (M − 1, N + 1, N ), for some positive integers
M, N . By total optimality, we must have f (M, N, N −1) ≤ f (M −1, N, N ) and f (M −1, N +1, N ) ≤
f (M, N, N ). Using (50), we deduce that any such pair (M, N ) satisfies

2 N 2 + 5N + 6 − 2 −


4
4
≤ M (M − 1) ≤ 2 N 2 + 5N + 6 + 2 + .
N +1
N

Observe that for any N > 2, we have N 4+1 < 2 and N4 < 2.

2 N 2 + 5N + 6 are even numbers, the above condition reduces to
M (M − 1) = 2(N 2 + 5N + 6 + φ),

(51)

Since both M (M − 1) and
(52)

where φ ∈ {−1, 0, 1}. If t̂ = M + 2N for such M, N , we call it a “bad” time.
We can show by induction that the myopic strategy achieves total optimality at any time t that
is not “bad”. Specifically, suppose t̂ is a bad time and the myopic division at time t̂−2 is the totally
optimal division (M − 1, N, N − 1).98 Then, at time t̂ − 1, the DM’s myopic choice is to observe
signal X, which achieves the totally optimal division (M, N, N − 1). Total optimality cannot be
achieved at the bad time t̂, but the myopic DM observes B1 to reach the division (M, N + 1, N − 1),
since f (M, N + 1, N − 1) = f (M, N, N ) < f (M + 1, N, N − 1). Next, at time t̂ + 1, the DM
myopically observes signal B2 . This yields the division (M, N + 1, N ), which is totally optimal at
97

We can however show that in this example, any myopic strategy maximizes the ex-ante expected payoff
(in the prediction problem), whenever the DM is moderately impatient (specifically, δ ≤ 0.91). Moreover,
for any discounting δ < 1, the myopic signal path eventually coincides with the forward-looking solution.
Thus this is an example in which myopic information acquisition eventually achieves dynamic optimality,
but does not eventually achieve total optimality.
98
Total optimality can be verified using (50) and (52).

59

t̂ + 1. Afterwards, the totally optimal divisions are monotonic until the next bad time.99 Hence
the myopic strategy preserves total optimality until then.
Take any pair (M, N ) satisfying (52) with φ = 1. This pair determines a bad time t̂ = M + 2N .
From the preceding paragraph, the myopic strategy observs XB1 B2 at times t̂ − 1, t̂ and t̂ + 1.
Consider a deviation strategy which observes B1 B2 X in these 3 periods, and which agrees with the
myopic signal path in all other periods. The flow payoffs obtained under the deviation differ from
the payoffs under the myopic strategy only in two periods: t̂ − 1 and t̂.
At time t̂ − 1, the deviation does worse by an amount of
f (M − 1, N + 1, N − 1) − f (M, N, N − 1) = 

2
M (M −1)

1+

2
M −1

+1−

−

1
2
N 2 +5N +7+ N

1
1
1
+ 1+N
1+ N


1+

2
M

+1−

1
1
1+ N

1
+N



(53)

At time t̂ however, the deviation does better by an amount of
f (M, N +1, N −1)−f (M −1, N +1, N ) = 

1
2
N 2 +5N +5− N+1

1+

2
M −1

+1−

1
1
1
1+ 1+N
+ 1+N

− M (M2 −1)

2
+1−
1+ M

1
1
1
1+ N
+ 1+N



(54)
Since M (M − 1) = 2(N 2 + 5N + 7), the RHS of (53) is of order N15 , while the RHS of (54) is of order
1
N 4 . Thus for any positive discount factor δ, the deviation strategy achieves higher discounted total
payoff than the myopic strategy whenever N is sufficiently large.100
Thus, for any δ > 0, it cannot be the case that m(t) = d(t) for every large t; otherwise, a
3-period deviation constructed above (with N sufficiently large) achieves higher ex-ante payoff.101
J.3

Beyond Linear Signals

The example below highlights the significance of linear signals for our equivalence results.
Example 7. Consider a setup similar to Example 4 before, with three states θ, b1 , b2 drawn inde99

The key is to show that n1 (t + 1) − n1 (t), n2 (t + 1) − n2 (t) ∈ {0, 1}. Given this, non-monotonicity of the
totally optimal division must mean that nX (t + 1) = nX (t) − 1, n1 (t + 1) = n1 (t) + 1, n2 (t + 1) = n2 (t) + 1.
100
The Diophantine equation (52) has infinitely many positive integer solutions (M, N ) for φ = 1. To see
2(2N + 5)2√= 7, which
this, we rewrite (52) as (2M − 1)2 − √
√ is a Pell’s equation. All integer solutions are
characterized by (2M − 1) + (2N + 5) 2 = (3 ± 2)(3 + 2 2)ℓ , with ℓ an arbitrary integer. Thus there are
infinitely many bad times, corresponding to (M, N ) = (6, 2), (14, 7), . . . .
101
Our analysis leaves open the possibility that m(t)−d(t) equals a nonzero constant vector at large times t,
so that the myopic and forward-looking signal paths are eventually the same, but the signal counts continue
to differ. We can however show it does not occur in this example: first recall that we have shown m(t) = n(t)
at a set of (bad) times with natural
√ density 1. Suppose d(t) 6= m(t) for all large t, then d(t) 6= n(t) at almost
all t. But λX /λ1 = λX /λ2 = 2, so the proof of Proposition 4 implies dX (t) cannot be different from
nX (t) (or mX (t)). The remaining case is if d1 (t) = m1 (t) + 1, d2 (t) = m2 (t) − 1 (or vice versa) for large
t. Note that, holding fixed mX (t), the myopic division always minimizes the DM’s posterior variance (since
any division m1 (t), m2 (t) with m1 (t) − m2 (t) ∈ {1, 2} is totally optimal for the prediction of b1 ). Thus
the forward-looking DM can switch an observation of signal B1 to signal B2 (or vice versa) and reduce his
posterior variance at every future period, leading to a contradiction.

60

pendently. The DM has access to three signals
X = θ + b1 + ǫ X
B1 = b1 · sign(b2 ) + ǫ1

B 2 = b2 + ǫ 2

where ǫX , ǫ1 , ǫ2 are Gaussian noise terms. The distinction from Example 4 is that the signal B1
here is not a linear combination of the unknown states, but rather depends on the “sign” of b2 .
We focus on the prediction problem, in which the DM seeks to minimize squared prediction error
about θ.
Note that prior to the first observation of signal B1 , signal B2 is completely uninformative about
the payoff-relevant state θ (even when combined with previous observations of signal X). Similarly,
signal B1 is individually uninformative about b1 and thus about θ1 unless when it is combined with
past observations of B2 . These imply that the DM’s uncertainty about θ is not reduced upon the
first observation of either B1 or B2 . Hence, the myopic strategy in this example is to always observe
X. A myopic DM gets stuck in observing X, contrary to Lemma 6.
In so doing, a myopic DM never fully learns the value of θ. By contrast, a forward-looking DM
would observe each signal infinitely often and completely identify the value of θ. Thus, eventual
equivalence between the myopic and dynamically optimal signal paths fails (drastically) in this
example for all signal variances, violating the conclusion of Theorem 2.

K

Proof of Theorem 4 (Time to “Eventual Gap One”)

The proof of the bound resembles the proof of Theorem 1 Part (a), except that we need sharper
estimates (for the posterior variance function and its derivatives). We now turn to these estimates.
Throughout, we work with the linearly-transformed model, where each signal Xi is simply θ̃i plus
standard Gaussian noise, and the DM’s prior covariance matrix over the transformed states is V .
Let w = (1, . . . , 1)′ , and γ = γ(q1 , . . . , qK ) represents the following K × 1 vector:
γ ′ = w′ · V (V + E)−1
with E = diag( q11 , . . . , q1K ). Our more precise approximations of the posterior variance function f
and its derivatives are based on this vector γ. For 1 ≤ i ≤ K, γi denotes the i-th coordinate of γ.
K.1

Preliminary Estimates

In this subsection, we re-derive the posterior variance function f , its derivatives and second derivatives. The formulae below take as primitives V and w, but they are equivalent to those presented
in Appendix A (for the original model). All partial derivatives in this subsection are the usual
continuous derivative.
Fact 1 (Posterior Variance).
f (q1 , . . . , qK ) = w′ (V − V (V + E)−1 V )w.

(55)

Fact 2 (Partial Derivatives of Posterior Variance).
∂i f (q1 , . . . , qK ) = −

1
γi2
′
−1
−1
·
w
V
(V
+
E)
∆
(V
+
E)
V
w
=
−
.
ii
qi2
qi2

61

(56)

Fact 3 (Second-Order Partial Derivatives of Posterior Variance).
∂ii f (q1 , . . . , qK )
2 · w′ V (V + E)−1 ∆ii (V + E)−1 V w 2 · w′ V (V + E)−1 ∆ii (V + E)−1 ∆ii (V + E)−1 V w
−
qi3
qi4


[(V + E)−1 ]ii
2γi2
·
1
−
=
(57)
qi
qi3

=

Fact 4 (Cross-Partial Derivatives of Posterior Variance).
∂ij f (q1 , . . . , qK ) =
=

2
qi2 qj2

· w′ V (V + E)−1 ∆ii (V + E)−1 ∆jj (V + E)−1 V w

2γi γj
· [(V + E)−1 ]ij .
qi2 qj2

(58)

The above facts are proved by simple linear algebra. The upshot is the following result which
quantifies the asymptotic characterization in Proposition 3 (easy to see that λi = 1):
Proposition 6. For T ≥ 21.5(S + 1)K 2 , it holds that 0.948 ·

T
K

≤ mi (T ), ni (T ) ≤ 1.054 ·

T
K.

Proof. We will derive the bounds for mi (t), which is more difficult. Note from the definition of γ
K ′
) . It follows that
that γ ′ · (V + E) = w′ · V , thus (V + E)γ = V w and V (w − γ) = Eγ = ( γq11 , . . . , γqK
w − γ = V −1 ·



′

γK
γ1
,...,
q1
qK

.

From the definition of the operator norm, we deduce
K
X
i=1



(1 − γi )2 = kw − γk2 ≤ S 2 · 

K
X
γj2
j=1

qj2



.

(59)

Let γ be evaluated at (m1 (t), . . . , mK (t)), and suppose signal j is the myopic choice in period
√
t + 1, so that |∂j f | =

γj2
(mj (t))2

is maximal.102 Then the above inequality implies |1 − γj | ≤

S K·γj
mj (t) .

102

This claim is somewhat incorrect, since the myopic signal maximizes (the absolute value of) the discrete
partial derivative, rather than the continuous derivative. However, there is minimal distinction between the
two: the discrete partial derivative always satisfies
γj2
γj2
≤ |f (qj + 1, q−j ) − f (qj , q−j )| ≤ 2 ,
qj (qj + 1)
qj
where γ is evaluated at (q1 , . . . , qK ). The RHS follows from the convexity of f , while the LHS uses the
γ
∂γ (q)
property that γj2 increases in qj , because ∂qj j = q2j · [(V + E)−1 ]jj .
j

γ2

γ2

γ2

j
i
i
Thus, if signal j is the myopic choice in period t + 1, we always have (mj (t))
2 ≥ m (t)·(m (t)+1) ≥ 2(m (t))2 .
i
i
i
Except for having to adjust the constants, the rest of this proof is minimally affected—in fact, these constants

γ2

γ2

γ2

j
i
i
need not change much either, because we have (mj (t))
2 ≥ m (t)·(m (t)+1) ≥ 1.1(m (t))2 once we have shown
i
i
i
mi (t) ≥ 10. The constant 1.1 appearing here is easily absorbed into the subsequent estimates.

62

Assuming mj (t) > 20SK, this gives |1 − γj | ≤
and using mj (t) > 20SK, we have for each i,

γj
√ ,
20 2

(1 − γi )2 + (1 − γj )2 <

so that γj < 1.037. Plugging back into (59)

1.0372 S 2 K
< 0.00135
(mj (t))2

which implies 0.963 < γi , γj < 1.037 and γj −γi < 0.052.103 Thus
γ

γj
γi

= 1+

γj −γi
γi

0.052
< 1+ 0.963
< 1.054.

m (t)

But by assumption | mjj(t) | ≥ | mγi i(t) |, so that mji (t) < 1.054.
Now since T ≥ 21.5(S + 1)K 2 , the DM must have observed some signal j in period t0 + 1 ≤ T
T
. Thus mj (t0 ) ≥ 21.5SK and our preceding analysis yields
with the property that mj (t0 + 1) ≥ K

mi (t0 ) > 21.5SK
1.054 > 20SK for every signal i. It follows that when t ≥ t0 + 1, mi (t) >
for every pair of signals i, j. Summing across i or j yields the desired bounds.104

mj (t)−1
1.054

holds

A particular step of the above proof is recorded below.
Fact 5. Suppose q1 , . . . , qK ≥ 20SK. Then 0.963 ≤ γi (q1 , . . . , qK ) ≤ 1.037 and |γi − γj | ≤ 0.052.
As a corollary, we have a quantitative version of the order difference lemma:
Lemma 13. Suppose q1 , . . . , qK ≥ 20SK. Then

1.80
qi3

≤ ∂ii f ≤

2.16
,
qi3

while |∂ij f | ≤

2.16S
, ∀i
qi2 qj2

6= j.

The proof of this is based on the previously listed facts and 0 ≤ [(V + E)−1 ]ii ≤ [V −1 ]ii ≤ S and
|(V + E)−1 ]ij | ≤ S.105
K.2

Bound on Consecutive Observations

We now bound the number of periods between consecutive observations of signal i.
Lemma 14. Suppose t ≥ 21.5(S + 1)K 2 , and the myopic DM observes signal j in period t. Then
mj (t + 3K) > mj (t).
Proof. Let T = t + 3K. Write mi = mi (t) and Mi = mi (T ). Without loss assume j = 1. We need
to show M1 > m1 .
P
Suppose for contradiction that M1 = m1 . Since K
i=1 (Mi − mi ) = T − t = 3K, we can without
loss assume M2 − m2 ≥ 4. Since signal 1 was myopically optimal at time t, the discrete partial
derivatives satisfy
∂1 f (m1 − 1, m2 , . . . , mK ) ≤ ∂2 f (m1 − 1, m2 , . . . , mK ).
We claim that this implies
∂1 f (M1 , M2 − 1, . . . , MK ) < ∂2 f (M1 , M2 − 1, . . . , MK ),
so that the DM cannot myopically observe signal 2 at time T (observing signal 1 would be better).
103

(γ −γ )2

The latter uses (1 − γi )2 + (1 − γj )2 ≥ j 2 i .
T
104
Fixing j and directly summing this inequality across i, we would obtain mj (t) < 1.054 K
+ 1. The extra
mj (t)−1
mj (t)+K−1
and summing this with the inequalities mi (t) > 1.054
“+1” can be removed by noting mj (t) >
1.054
across i different from j.
105
This estimate is rather crude: when V is diagonal, [(V + E)−1 ]ij = 0 but S can be arbitrarily large.
This suggests potential improvements to our bound that better capture correlation in the prior.

63

To prove this claim, consider the difference between the preceding two displays. Since M1 = m1 ,
the LHS of the latter display is smaller than the LHS of the former plus ∂11 f and at most T − t
cross partials. The RHS, however, is larger by (M2 − m2 − 1)∂22 f minus at most T − t cross partials.
It thus suffices to show
3∂22 f ≥ ∂11 f + 6K|∂ij f |.
(60)
These derivatives are evaluated at points (q1 , . . . , qK ) with mi ≤ qi ≤ Mi , so that 0.948 Kt ≤
T
qi ≤ 1.054 K
≤ 1.13 Kt .106 Hence, by Lemma 13, we have

and also

∂11 f
2.16 · 1.133
2.16 · q23
≤
≤
< 2.1
∂22 f
1.8 · 0.9483
1.8 · q13

2.16 · 1.133 SK
2.16 · q23 · S
2.15SK
1
|∂ij f |
≤
≤
·
<
<
.
2
2
4
∂22 f
1.8 · 0.948
t
t
10K
1.8 · qi qj

Hence (60) holds, proving the myopic DM did not observe signal 2 at time T . Essentially the same
argument can be used to derive a contradiction assuming that signal 2 was observed at some time
between t and T . But then M2 = m2 , again a contradiction. The Lemma is thus proved.
K.3

Completing the Proof of Theorem 4

Fix t ≥ 24(S + 1)K 2 . Suppose for contradiction that |mi (t) − ni (t)| > 1 for some i. Without loss
assume |m1 (t) − n1 (t)| > 1 and this difference is largest among all signals. We further assume
m1 (t) ≤ n1 (t) − 2 and m2 (t) ≥ n2 (t) + 1. A symmetric argument applies to m1 (t) ≥ n1 (t) + 2.
Let t̃ ≤ t be the last period when the myopic DM observed signal 2. By Lemma 14, t− t̃ ≤ 3K.107
Write ni = ni (t), mi = mi (t), m̃i = mi (t̃). As in the proof of Theorem 1 Part (a), we will prove
(18) and deduce a contradiction. We have (considering the difference between (19) and (20))
f (m̃1 , m̃2 , . . . m̃K ) − f (m̃1 + 1, m̃2 − 1, . . . m̃K ) − f (n1 − 1, n2 + 1, . . . , nK ) + f (n1 , n2 , . . . , nK )

=∂2 (m̃1 , m̃2 − 1, . . . , m̃K ) − ∂1 (m̃1 , m̃2 − 1, . . . , m̃K ) − ∂2 (n1 − 1, n2 , . . . , nK ) + ∂1 (n1 − 1, n2 , . . . , nK )
X
=(m̃2 − n2 − 1)∂22 f + (n1 − m̃1 − 1)∂11 f − (n1 − m̃1 − 1 + m̃2 − n2 − 1)∂12 f +
(nj − m̃j )(∂1j f − ∂2j f )
j>2

≥(n1 − m1 − 1) · ∂11 f − (|n1 − m̃1 | + |n2 − m̃2 |) · |∂12 f | −

X
j>2

|nj − m̃j | · (|∂1j f | + |∂2j f |).

(61)

All partial derivatives in the above are discrete partial derivatives, and the last inequality holds
because m̃1 ≤ m1 and m̃2 = m2 ≥ n2 + 1.
The total number of cross partials that appear above can be bounded by
X
X
X
2
|nj − m̃j | ≤ 2
|nj − mj | + 2
|mj − m̃j |
j

j

j

≤ 2K(n1 − m1 ) + 2(t − t̃) ≤ 10K(n1 − m1 − 1),

where the first step uses the triangle inequality, the second step uses the assumption |nj − mj | ≤
n1 − m1 , and the last step uses t − t̃ ≤ 3K, n1 − m1 ≥ 2.
|∂ij f |
1
However, we have shown previously that ∂11
f < 10K . Hence the RHS of (61) is strictly positive,
completing the proof of the theorem.
15
.
The last step uses t ≥ 42K and so Tt ≤ 14
2
Consider t0 = 21.5(S+1)K , then by Proposition 6, m2 (t0 ) ≤ 1.054t0 < 22.7(S+1)K 2 < 0.948t ≤ m2 (t).
Thus the myopic DM observed signal 2 between time t0 and time t, and t̃ ≥ t0 . Applying Lemma 14 to t̃
yields t − t̃ ≤ 3K.
106

107

64

L

Intertemporal Decisions

L.1

Example: Investment in a Risky Asset with Unknown Return

We first provide a concrete example to illustrate the class of intertemporal decision problems discussed in Section 7. Suppose a worker repeatedly decides how much to consume, how much to save
in a liquid asset (bond), and how much to invest in an illiquid asset (pension fund). The return
to the liquid asset is known: 1 dollar saved today is worth er dollars tomorrow, with r > 0. The
return to the illiquid asset is unknown, and it is the payoff-relevant state in the worker’s decision
problem; for now, we assume that every dollar invested today in the pension fund deterministically
yields eθ1 dollar(s) tomorrow. The worker works for T periods, and in each of these periods he
learns about θ1 and then allocates his wealth across consumption, saving and investment. In period
T + 1, the worker retires and receives all the returns from his investments (into the illiquid asset).
His objective is to maximize a discounted sum of consumption utilities as well as the utility from
his wealth upon retirement.
Our equivalence results applied to this example imply that in separable or symmetric informational environments, the worker’s optimal information acquisition strategy is myopic, minimizing
the posterior variance about θ1 at every period. This property would then allow us to analyze
the worker’s optimal consumption/saving/investment behavior as if information were exogenously
given. While we will not comment on the optimal sequence of actions, our results provide an important simplification of the analysis by separating the concern of optimal information acquisitions
from the question of optimal decisions.
An important (hidden) assumption of the above example is that the return to investment
is deterministic and only observed at the end. However, by considering the realized return as
a particular signal, our model can also cover situations in which the DM (perhaps periodically)
learns from past, stochastic returns. Our results would extend as long as the distribution of the
realized (log) return does not depend on the amount of investment—specifically, the worker could
counterfactually figure out the return to his investment, even when he did not invest.
L.2

Proof of Theorem 5

To simplify notation, we (equivalently) let the DM take action at at the beginning of each period
t, prior to observing a signal in that period. The DM’s strategy in this problem consists of an
information acquisition strategy S as well as a decision strategy A. Specifically, at any history hT
(which is a sequence of divisions and expected values about θ1 ), A(hT ) specifies the action to be
taken in period T + 1, while S(hT ) is the signal choice.108 Fix any pair (S, A), we will demonstrate another pair (S̃, Ã) that achieves the same expected payoff, where S̃ acquires information
myopically. This will prove the theorem.
Our argument closely follows the proof of Lemma 7 in Appendix F. Let G̃ maps each sequence of divisions (d(0), . . . , d(T )) under S to the deterministic sequence of myopic divisions
(m(0), . . . , m(T )). Then, as in the proof of Lemma 7 (especially the last paragraph there), we can
associate each history of beliefs hT = (µ01 , f (0); µ11 , f (d(1)); . . . ; µT1 , f (d(T ))) under S to a distribution of belief histories h̃T = (µ01 , f (0); ν11 , f (m(1)); . . . , ν1T , f (m(T ))) that occurs with the same
probability under S̃ and is more informative about θ1 at every period. Then, at a given history h̃T
under S̃, we let the DM randomly draw a history hT to “imitate” and follow the action choice given
by A. That is, we set Ã(h̃T ) = A(hT ) with the appropriate probability that h̃T imitates hT .109
108
109

Since pure strategies suffice for the DM’s problem, it is not necessary to condition on past actions.
The appropriate probability kernel has been discussed in the proof of Lemma 7.

65

With this construction of Ã, we see that a DM following the decision strategy A obtains the
same payoff along any infinite belief history h as another DM who uses the decision strategy Ã and
faces the distribution of belief histories h̃. Integrating over h, we have shown that (S̃, Ã) achieves
the same payoff as (S, A). Hence the Theorem follows.

M

The Continuous-Time Model

In this appendix, we consider a continuous-time variation of our main model. We assume that
the DM has one unit of attention in totalP
at every point in time. He chooses attention levels
β1 (t), . . . , βK (t) (subject to βi (t) ≥ 0 and i βi (t) ≤ 1), which influence the diffusion processes
X1 , . . . , XK that he observes:110
p
dXit = βi (t) · θ̃i dt + βi (t)dBit ,
where each Bi is an independent standard Brownian motion, and θ̃i = hci , θi is a “transformed
state.” The payoff-relevant state is
θ1 = hw, θ̃i

for some fixed K × 1 vector w. We assume exact identifiability, so each coordinate wi > 0.
At any time t, the DM’s past attention levels integrate
to a division
q(t) over the signals. A

oK 
n
≤t
Markovian information acquisition strategy S maps q(t), Xi
to ∆([K]), representing how
i=1

the DM divides attention at each instant as a function of his posterior beliefs.
The decision problem is the same as in discrete time: at an exogenously determined random
final time t (drawn with density π(t)), the R
DM takes an action at and receives payoff ut (at , θ1 ).
∞
The forward-looking DM thus maximizes E 0 π(t) · ut (at , θ1 ) dt . We maintain the assumptions
of a single payoff-relevant state and payoff sensitivity.
As in the discrete-time model (see Appendix K), the DM’s posterior variance about θ1 is a
function of his prior covariance matrix V over θ̃, the division q and the weights w:
f (q1 , . . . , qK ) = w′ (V − V (V + E)−1 V )w


with E = diag q11 , . . . , q1K . This posterior variance together with the posterior expected value of
θ1 determines the optimal action at that maximizes the flow payoff E[ut (at , θ1 )]. We will thus focus
on the dynamically optimal information acquisition strategy, and take for granted the corresponding
optimal actions.
The notion of constrained total optimality at time t following a given history h is defined in
the usual way. As before, a strategy S is constrained totally optimal at time t if and only if the
induced division q S (t) is almost surely a constrained totally optimal division:
q S (t) ∈

argmin
P

qi ≥Hi ,

f (q1 , . . . , qK ).

i qi =t

The only difference from discrete time is that qi can now take non-integer values. We note that
by using an argument analogous to Footnote 69, we can show there is a unique constrained totally
optimal division nhi (t) at every time t.
110

This formulation can be seen as a limit of our discrete-time model, if we take period length to zero and
also “divide” the signals to maintain the same amount of information that can be gathered every second.

66

M.1

Sufficient Conditions for Immediate Equivalence

We first examine the question of when myopic information acquisition is dynamically and totally
optimal from the beginning of time. Let us define a myopic strategy in continuous time to be any
limit of dynamically optimal strategies as the DM becomes infinitely impatient. Then, we seek
sufficient conditions under which dynamic optimality coincides with total optimality. As is now
routine, this equivalence holds if and only if the constrained totally optimal divisions are monotonic
over time, following any given history.
Proposition 1 and 2 directly extend and show that immediate equivalence obtains whenever the
informational environment is separable or symmetric. More surprisingly, Example 4 presented in the
main text now satisfies immediate equivalence, even though this equivalence fails in the discretetime model (see Appendix J for details).111 We mention that the example can be generalized
to allow more states θ1 , b1 , . . . , bK−2 , bK−1 and a “hierarchy” of noisy signals about θ1 + b1 , b1 +
b2 , . . . , bK−2 + bK−1 , bK−1 . Immediate equivalence still obtains.
We now show that in continuous time, immediate equivalence holds whenever the DM’s prior is
almost independent. This formally confirms the intuition we provided for Theorem 1. Recall that
V is the DM’s prior covariance matrix over the transformed states θ̃1 , . . . , θ̃K .
Theorem 7. Suppose time is continuous. For each K there exists ρ(K) > 0, such that myopic,
dynamic and total optimality coincide at every time whenever the prior covariance matrix satisfies
|Vij | ≤ ρ(K) · Vii , ∀i 6= j.
Importantly, this sufficient condition does not depend on the weight vector w, so that the myopic
solution is optimal regardless of what the DM’s payoff-relevant state is.112
For the special case of two states and two signals, we are able to derive a sufficient and necessary
condition for immediate equivalence. Replacing each θ̃i by its negative if necessary, we will assume
w1 , w2 > 0.
Theorem 8. Suppose time is continuous and K = 2. Then myopic, dynamic and total optimality
coincide at every time if and only if
w1 (V11 + V12 ) + w2 (V21 + V22 ) ≥ 0.113
The proofs of these results are deferred to later in this appendix.
111
To see immediate equivalence in continuous time, we recall that Example 4 has three states θ, b1 , b2 and
three noisy signals X, B1 , B2 about θ + b1 , b1 + b2 , b2 respectively. The totally optimal problem is to allocate
t = tX + t1 + t2 units of time across these three signals to minimize the posterior variance about θ. Because
the DM’s prior beliefs over the states are independent, his allocation problem can be broken down into two
sub-problems: first, for fixed sum t1 + t2 , what is the optimal way to allocate t1 , t2 to minimize the posterior
variance about state b1 ? Second, given the minimal variance about b1 as a function of t1 + t2 , what is the
optimal pair (tX , t1 + t2 )? Note that the first sub-problem is the same as our benchmark model. Thus, the
optimal pair (t1 , t2 ) is increasing in the sum t1 + t2 . On the other hand, because the minimal variance about
b1 is a convex function of t1 + t2 , the second sub-problem also exhibits separability. Hence, the optimal pair
(tX , t1 + t2 ) is increasing in t, which implies that the entire triple (tX , t1 , t2 ) is monotonic.
The reason this argument does not apply in discrete time is because the minimal variance about b1 is not
a convex function of t1 + t2 , when t1 , t2 are restricted to integer values. More specifically, for given t1 + t2 ,
the DM’s optimal allocation for learning b1 involves t1 = t2 + 1. But this is not always feasible in discrete
time when the desired sum t1 + t2 is an even integer. It is in those situations that a discrete-time DM does
not fully take advantage of the complementarity between signals B1 and B2 .
112
This condition is not necessary; for example, separability does not require that the prior covariance
matrix satisfies the inequality above.
113
This condition can be rewritten as Cov (w1 θ̃1 + w2 θ̃2 , θ̃1 + θ̃2 ) ≥ 0.

67

M.2

Eventual Equivalence

Next, we investigate the informational environments in which immediate equivalence does not
occur. Recall that in discrete time, Theorems 1 and 2 show that the number of signals acquired of
each type under different optimality criteria differ by at most one, and this “eventual gap of one”
vanishes in generic environments. We now show that in continuous time, the “eventual gap of one”
can be dropped in all (not just generic) environments. Intuitively, the continuous-time model can
be seen as a limit of our main discrete-time model as the period length shrinks to zero. Since the
“gap of one” corresponds to a difference of one period, it vanishes in the limit.
Theorem 9. Suppose time is continuous. There exists a large time T ∗ such that for any decision
problem, the division d(t) under the dynamically optimal strategy is deterministic when t ≥ T ∗ , and
d(t) = n(t) is the unique totally optimal division at time t.
We make a few comments. First, this result does not rely on the assumption that some signal always
decreases the posterior variance about θ1 strictly, i.e. Assumption 4. Second, we only state above
the equivalence between dynamic and total optimality, but since a myopic strategy is the limit
of dynamically optimal strategies, we also deduce the eventual optimality of myopic information
acquisition. Lastly, our proof can be quantified to give an effective upper bound on T ∗ , analogous
to what we did in Appendix K; we omit the details to save space.
M.3

Proof of Theorem 7

All partial derivatives in this appendix are the usual continuous derivative.
Pick ρ(K) to be a small positive constant. We will show that the assumption |Vij | ≤ ρ(K)Vii , ∀i, j
implies the constrained totally optimal divisions following any given history are monotonic over
h
time. Fix history h with signal counts Hi . The unique
P constrained totally optimal division ni (t)
minimizes f (n1 , . . . , nK ) subject to ni ≥ Hi , ∀i and i ni = t. Thus, by the maximum theorem,
nh (t) is continuous in t. P
At any given time t > i Hi , the Kuhn-Tucker condition for optimality implies that whenever
nhi (t) > Hi , the partial derivative ∂i f (nh (t)) must be a constant independent of the signal i. Fix
a time t∗ and let us classify the K signals into two groups: if nhj (t) = Hj for all t in a small
neighborhood around t∗ , we put signal j into the first group. Every other signal i is put into the
second group. That means, if signal i is in the second group, then we can find t arbitrarily close to
t∗ such that nhiP
(t) > Hi .
Since t∗ > i Hi , we can suppose without loss that nh1 (t∗ ) > H1 . Thus by continuity, nh1 (t) >
H1 for t sufficiently close to t∗ . Then, if signal i is in the second group, we can find times t → t∗
such that nhi (t) > Hi and nh1 (t) > H1 . It follows that ∂i f (nh (t)) = ∂1 f (nh (t)). Taking the limit as
t → t∗ and using the continuity of nh (t), we deduce ∂i f (nh (t∗ )) = ∂1 f (nh (t∗ )).114
Let us suppose without loss of generality that the second group consists of signals 1, . . . , k.
Then, the preceding paragraph shows for t close to t∗ :
∂i f (nh1 (t), . . . , nhK (t))

is constant for 1 ≤ i ≤ k.

114
This is obviously true if nhi (t∗ ) > Hi , but the second group of signals may also contain some i for which
nhi (t∗ ) = Hi (but nhi (t) > Hi at times t close to t∗ ).

68

Differentiating with respect to t, we obtain115
K
X
∂nhj (t)
j=1

∂t

By definition of the groups,

· ∂ij f (nh1 (t), . . . , nhK (t))

∂nh
j (t)
∂t

k
X
∂nhj (t)
j=1

∂t

is constant for 1 ≤ i ≤ k.

= 0 for j > k, we thus have
· ∂ij f (nh1 (t), . . . , nhK (t)) = c, ∀1 ≤ i ≤ k.
∂nh (t)

j
This is a system of k linear equations in the k linear unknowns ∂t
. Thus, we deduce by matrix
algebra
′
 h
∂nhk (t)
∂n1 (t)
= c · Hess−1 · (1, . . . , 1)′
(62)
,...,
∂t
∂t

with Hess being the top-left k × k sub-matrix of the Hessian matrix of f (evaluated at n1 , . . . , nK ).
We note that
k
X
∂nhi (t)
1=
= c · (1, . . . , 1) · Hess−1 · (1, . . . , 1)′
∂t
i=1
P
where the first equality follows from i nhi (t) = t and the second follows from (62). Since f is
convex, Hess is positive-definite and so is Hess−1 . Thus (1, . . . , 1) · Hess−1 · (1, . . . , 1)′ > 0, which
implies c > 0 via the preceding display.
∂nh (t)

∂nh (t)

1
k
Hence, to show ∂t
, . . . , ∂t
are all positive, it suffices by (62) to show that each row vector
1
−1
of Hess has positive sum. We write Hess−1 = det(Hess)
· adj(Hess), where adj(Hess) is the
“adjugate matrix” of Hess whose ij-th entry is (plus or minus) the determinant of the (j, i)-th
|Hess |
“cofactor” of Hess. We claim that the row sums of Hess−1 are positive whenever the ratio Hessijii
is sufficiently small (depending on k) for every i 6= j ∈ {1, . . . , k}. Indeed, suppose such ratios
are small. Then by directly expanding the determinant into aQsum of products, we see that the
determinant of the (i, i)-th cofactor is dominated by the term r6=i HessrrQ
, while every summand
in the determinant of the (i, j)-th cofactor is small compared to this term r6=i Hessrr . From this
we deduce [Hess−1 ]ii is positive and much larger (in absolute value) than [Hess−1 ]ij , so that the
row sums of Hess−1 are positive.
|Hess |
Given the preceding analysis, it remains to show that Hessijii is small. This is given in the
following lemma:116

V

Lemma 15. Suppose the ratio Vijii is sufficiently small for every i 6= j. Then at any division
(q1 , . . . , qK ) such that ∂1 f (q1 , . . . , qK ) = ∂2 f (q1 , . . . , qK ), the ratio |∂12 f (q1 , . . . , qK )|/∂11 f (q1 , . . . , qK )
is correspondingly small.
∂nh (t)

115

j
almost always exists
It can be shown from the Implicit Function Theorem that the derivatives ∂t
and is given by (62) below. The only exception occurs when t is the largest time at which nhj (t) = Hj —even
in that case, the right-sided derivative exists and is given by (62).
116
This lemma can be interpreted as saying that low correlation in the prior translates into near-separability
of the signals.

69

Proof of Lemma 15. We recall the following computations from the beginning of Appendix K:
∂1 f = −

γ12
;
q12

∂2 f = −



2γ12
[(V + E)−1 ]11
∂11 f = 3 · 1 −
;
q1
q1
The assumption that ∂1 f = ∂2 f tells us

γ1
q1

=

γ2
q2 .

γ22
q22

∂12 f =

2γ1 γ2
· [(V + E)−1 ]12 .
q12 q22

It follows that

|∂12 f |
|[(V + E)−1 ]12 /q2 |
=
.
∂11 f
1 − [(V + E)−1 ]11 /q1

(63)

To evaluate the above ratio, we introduce a piece of notation. For subsets I, J ⊂ {1, . . . , K},
we write M−IJ the sub-matrix of M after removing rows i ∈ I and columns j ∈ J; M−{i}{j} is
simplified as M−ij . Then we have (by directly expanding the determinant and collecting terms)
det(V + E) =

X

Y 1
· det(V−SS ).
qi

S⊂{1,...,K} i∈S

det((V + E)−11 ) =

X

Y 1
· det(V−S ∗ S ∗ ) with S ∗ representing S ∪ {1}.
qi

S⊂{2,...,K} i∈S

We use the convention that when S is the empty set,
The above two equalities imply that

Q

[(V + E)−1 ]11
det((V + E)−11 )
1−
=1−
=
q1
q1 det(V + E)

i∈S

P

· · · = 1.

S⊂{2,...,K}

On the other hand, we also have
Q
1
1 P
[(V + E)−1 ]12
T ⊂{3,...,K}
i∈T qi · det(V−T ∗ T ∗∗ )
q2 ·
=
q2
det(V + E)
Q
P
1
T ⊂{3,...,K}
i∈T ∗∗ qi · det(V−T ∗ T ∗∗ )
=
det(V + E)

Q

1
i∈S qi

· det(V−SS )

det(V + E)

.

(64)

(with T ∗ = T ∪ {1}, T ∗∗ = T ∪ {2})
(65)

In light of (63), we need to show that the RHS of (64) is much larger (in absolute value) than
the RHS of (65). Each T ⊂ {3, . . . , K} on the RHS of (65) can be associated with the subset
S = T ∗∗ ⊂ {2, . . . , K} on the RHS of (64). The RHS of (64) also contains additional summands,
but they are all positive by the positive definiteness of V . Thus it suffices to compare the associated
summands and show that for every T ⊂ {3, . . . , K}, the positive term det(V−T ∗∗ T ∗∗ ) is much larger
than |det(V−T ∗ T ∗∗ )|. For this we directly expand these determinants: since Vii isQmuch larger (in
absolute value) than every Vij , the dominant term in the expansion of V−T ∗∗ T ∗∗ is i∈T
/ ∗∗ Vii , which
∗∗
contains K−|T | diagonal terms of V . This dominates every term in the expansion of det(V−T ∗ T ∗∗ ),
since all terms contain at most K − |T ∗∗ | − 1 diagonal terms of V . The latter completes the proof
of the lemma. Theorem 7 also follows.

70

M.4

Proof of Theorem 8
γ2

Recall that ∂i f (q1 , q2 ) = − qi2 , with γ = (V + E)−1 V w and E = diag( q11 , q12 ). We then directly
i
compute that
−(w1 · det(V ) · q2 + w1 V11 + w2 V21 )2
−(x1 q2 + y1 )2
:=
;
2
q12 q22 det (V + E)
q12 q22 det2 (V + E)
−(x2 q1 + y2 )2
−(w2 · det(V ) · q1 + w1 V12 + w2 V22 )2
:=
.
∂2 f (q1 , q2 ) =
2
q12 q22 det (V + E)
q12 q22 det2 (V + E)
∂1 f (q1 , q2 ) =

(66)

For notational ease, we define x1 = w1 · det(V ), x2 = w2 · det(V ), y1 = w1 V11 + w2 V21 and
y2 = w1 V12 + w2 V22 . Observe that x1 , x2 > 0. We need to show immediate equivalence holds if and
only if y1 + y2 ≥ 0.
In one direction, suppose that y1 + y2 ≥ 0. Let us consider the totally optimal divisions and
show they are monotonic over time. To see this, without loss assume y1 ≥ y2 , which means y1 ≥ 0
because y1 + y2 ≥ 0. Take any time t > 0. Then from (66), ∂1 f (0, t) < ∂2 f (0, t). Thus the
first-order-condition for total optimality implies that at the totally optimal division (q1 , t − q1 ),
either ∂1 f (q1 , q2 ) = ∂2 f (q1 , q2 ) or q1 = t, q2 = 0. As x1 q2 + y1 + x2 q1 + y2 > 0, the partial
derivatives are equal if and only if x1 q2 + y1 = x2 q1 + y2 . Combined with q1 + q2 = t, this yields
1 +y2
2
1 −y2
, q2 = x2xt−y
. For t < y1x−y
, this candidate
a candidate totally optimal division q1 = x1xt+y
1 +x2
1 +x2
2
2
solution is not feasible because q2 < 0. Thus the totally optimal division at t < y1x−y
is (t, 0).
2
y1 −y2
For t ≥ x2 , it can be verified that the above candidate solution indeed minimizes f (because
2
∂1 f − ∂2 f turns from negative to positive only once). Thus the totally optimal division at t ≥ y1x−y
2
x1 t+y1 −y2 x2 t−y1 +y2
is ( x1 +x2 , x1 +x2 ), which is seen to be monotonic over time. We can use the same argument
to show that the constrained totally optimal divisions are monotonic,117 proving the equivalence
between dynamic and total optimality.
In the opposite direction, suppose that y1 + y2 < 0. We will show that the totally optimal
divisions are not monotonic over time. First notice that one of y1 , y2 must be positive, because
w1 y1 + w2 y2 = w12 ·V11 + 2w1 w2 ·V12 + w22 ·V22 > 0. Without loss, let us assume y1 > 0 and y2 < −y1 .
1 −y2
From (66), we see that for t sufficiently small (t < −y
q1 +q2 ), ∂2 f (q1 , q2 ) < ∂1 f (q1 , q2 ) holds whenever
2
q1 + q2 = t. Thus, the totally optimal division at such times t is (0, t). But consider t̂ = −y
x2 . By
(66) we have ∂2 f (t̂, 0) = 0 > ∂1 f (t̂, 0). Hence f (t̂, 0) < f (t̂ − ǫ, ǫ) for any small ǫ. Together with
the convexity of f , we deduce that the totally optimal division at t̂ is precisely (t̂, 0). This violates
monotonicity, as we desire to show. The proof of the theorem is complete.
M.5

Proof of Theorem 9

As in Appendix I, an important step of the proof is to show that following any history in which
each signal is observed sufficiently often, the constrained totally optimal divisions are monotonic.
Lemma 16. Suppose time is continuous. There exists H ∗ such that for any history h with signal
counts Hi ≥ H ∗ , ∀i, the constrained totally optimal divisions following h are increasing (in each
coordinate) over time.
117
Suppose we want to minimize f (q1 , q2 ) subject to q1 + q2 ≥ t, q1 ≥ H1 , q2 ≥ H2 . Writing q1 = H1 + q̂1
and q2 = H2 + q̂2 , then the partial derivatives become ∂1 f = −(x1 q̂2 + ŷ1 )2 / . . . and ∂2 f = −(x2 q̂1 + ŷ2 )2 / . . . ,
with ŷ1 = y1 + x1 H2 and ŷ2 = y2 + x2 H1 taking the role of y1 , y2 . Since ŷ1 + ŷ2 ≥ y1 + y2 ≥ 0, our method
of proof remains valid.

71

Proof. We claim that if n = nh (t) is a constrained totally optimal division at time t, and n̂ = nh (t̂)
is a constrained totally optimal division at time t̂ > t, then n̂i ≥ ni for every signal i.
It suffices to prove the claim for pairs ofPtime t, t̂ with t < t̂ < t + 1. Let αi = n̂i − ni and
suppose for contradiction that α1 < 0. Since i αi = t̂ − t > 0, we can without loss assume α2 > 0,
and it is the largest among α1 , . . . , αK .
Since n1 > n̂1 ≥ H1 , the constraint n1 ≥ H1 is slack for the constrained optimum at time t.
This implies
∂1 f (n1 , n2 , . . . , nK ) ≤ ∂2 f (n1 , n2 , . . . , nK ),
because otherwise the value of f can be reduced by decreasing n1 and increasing n2 slightly.118
Similarly we can obtain
∂1 f (n̂1 , n̂2 , . . . , n̂K ) ≥ ∂2 f (n̂1 , n̂2 , . . . , n̂K ).
However, from the first display to the second one above, the LHS decreases by at least −α1 · ∂11 f −
P
j6=1 |αj · ∂1j
P| (using the mean-value theorem). The RHS, on the other hand, increases by at least
α2 · ∂22 f − j6=2 |αj · ∂2j |. Thus, the previous two displays contradict one another as long as
X
X
− α1 · ∂11 f + α2 · ∂22 f ≥
|αj · ∂1j | +
|αj · ∂2j |.
(67)
j6=1

j6=2

All these partial derivatives are evaluated at divisions (q1 , . . . , qK ) such that for each i, either
ni ≤ qi ≤ n̂i or n̂i ≤ qi ≤ niP
. Either way, qi ≥ Hi ≥ H ∗Pis sufficiently large.
Since α2 is largest, and j αj = t̂ − t ≥ 0, we have j |αj | ≤ 2(K − 1)|α2 |. Moreover, the order
difference lemma ensures that ∂22 f ≥ Lq1 3 and |∂ij f | ≤ q2Lq2 for some large constant L. Thus, (67)
i j

2

would follow once we show that q2 cannot be too large compared with other qj —more precisely, we
need to show qq2j is bounded above by some constant. For this, it suffices to prove n̂2 /nj is bounded
n̂

above. This is because njj is bounded above (t̂ < t + 1) and n̂2 /n̂j is also bounded above: otherwise,
|∂j f (n̂)| > |∂2 f (n̂)|, so that decreasing n̂2 and increasing n̂j slightly makes f smaller, contradicting
constrained total optimality.
This analysis proves (67). Hence the Lemma.
Proof of Theorem 9. Let H ∗ be given by the preceding lemma. Suppose we can demonstrate a
time T0 such that any realized division d(T0 ) under a dynamically optimal strategy S satisfies
di (T0 ) ≥ H ∗ . Then, because constrained total optimality is attainable at every future time, the
optimal strategy S must attain it. That is, at any time t ≥ T0 , the division d(t) must be constrained
totally optimal subject to di (t) ≥ di (T0 ), ∀i. For sufficiently large t, this constrained totally optimal
division coincides with the unconstrained totally optimal division,119 which proves the theorem.
Hence, the remaining difficulty is to prove di (t) → ∞. In Appendix F, we showed the same
result in discrete time by considering (i, j)-switch deviations. The proof strategy here is similar
but somewhat trickier, because we do not assume some signal strictly decreases posterior variance.
To start, we recall the class of deviation strategies in Appendix F and adapt them to the
continuous-time setting. For each continuous path of divisions (d(t))0≤t≤T , G̃ maps to another
˜ 0≤t≤T subject to consistency. The continuous-time analogue of the dynamic Blackwellpath (d(t))
˜ )) ≤ f (d(T )) always holds, then the deviation strategy
dominance lemma (Lemma 7) is that if f (d(T
S̃ that simulates S yields a weakly higher expected payoff.
118

Equality need not hold, if the constraint n2 ≥ H2 binds.
Our asymptotic characterization of n(t) shows that the unconstrained totally optimal division satisfies
the constraints at large t. Thus it is also the constrained totally optimal division.
119

72

Let H > H ∗ be a large constant and H be an even larger constant, to be determined later. Fix
a dynamically optimal strategy S. Consider any history under S such that some signal has been
observed at least H units of time, while some other signal has been observed fewer than H units
of time. Relabelling the signals if necessary, we assume that (t0 denotes the calendar time of that
history)
d1 (t0 ), . . . dk (t0 ) < H ≤ dk+1 (t0 ), . . . , dK−1 (t0 ); dK (t0 ) ≥ H.
Below we will construct a deviation strategy S̃ following this history.
˜ ) jointly. At any time T ≥ t0 , there are
We define the deviation S̃ and its induced divisions d(T
three possibilities:
1. Suppose that, given the path of divisions (d(t))0≤t≤T , the original strategy S devotes attention
to signal K. Then we let S̃ distribute this amount of attention evenly among those signals
j ∈ {1, . . . , k} for which d˜j (T ) < H. If no such signal exists, let S̃ also observe signal K.

In other words, whenever the time derivative of dK (T ) is positive, we set the time derivative
of d˜K (T ) to be zero, and compensate it by increasing the time derivatives of dj (T ) for those
signals j that are insufficiently observed.

2. Suppose that S devotes attention to signal k + 1, . . . , K − 1. Then we let S̃ observe the same
signal.
3. Suppose that S devotes attention to signal j ∈ {1, . . . , k}. If d˜j (T ) < H or d˜j (T ) = dj (T ),
then we let S̃ also observe signal j. Otherwise d˜j (T ) = H > dj (T ), and we let S̃ observe
signal K instead.
To interpret, S̃ deviates from S as soon as some signal (signal K) has been observed too often
compared to some other “deficient signals”. Following that history, S̃ refrains from observing signal
K and instead devotes attention to the deficient signals, until all deficient signals reach a certain
signal count. Moreover, the third case above says that when a deficient signal j reaches the target
level, S̃ switches back to observing signal K until S̃ agrees with S on the signal count of j. In this
sense, the deviation S̃ considered here is a natural extension of the “switch deviations” introduced
in the discrete-time model (see Appendix F).
˜ ) = d(T ), or f (d̃(T )) < f (d(T )). Suppose d(T
˜ ) 6= d(T ), then there
Let us verify that either d(T
˜
must exist some signal j ∈ {1, . . . , k} such that dj (T ) < dj (T ). By the above construction, there

could be four types of signals (we omit the dependence on T to ease notation):
∀1 ≤ j ≤ m, dj < d˜j < H and d˜j − dj = α;
∀m + 1 ≤ j ≤ l, dj < d˜j = H and d˜j − dj = αj ≤ α;
∀l + 1 ≤ j ≤ K − 1, dj = d˜j ≥ H;
dK > d˜K ≥ H and dK − d˜K = mα +

(68)
l
X

αj

j=m+1

for some indices 0 ≤ m ≤ l ≤ k, l ≥ 1 and positive real number α.120
Every d˜j − dj is equal to the same α for 1 ≤ j ≤ m because attention devoted to signal K is always
distributed evenly among the deficient signals.
120

73

If m = 0, then (the first type does not exist and) d˜j ≥ H for every signal j. Thus for some
˜ ≥ 1/(L(d˜j )2 ). Without loss assume
constant L and any sufficiently large H, it holds that |∂j f (d)|
α1 is largest. Then
α1
α1
˜
f (d̃) ≤ f (d1 , d˜2 , . . . , d˜K ) + (d˜1 − d1 ) · ∂1 f (d̃) ≤ f (d1 , d˜−1 ) −
2 ≤ f (d1 , . . . , dK−1 , dK ) −
LH
LH 2
where the first inequality uses the convexity of f , and the last inequality uses its monotonicity. On
the other hand,
f (d) ≥ f (d1 , . . . , dK−1 , d˜K ) + (dK − d˜K ) · ∂K f (d−K , d˜K ) ≥ f (d1 , . . . , dK−1 , d˜K ) − (K − 1)α1 ·

L
.
˜
(dK )2

˜ < f (d) whenever H is significantly larger than H.
Since d˜K ≥ H, we do have f (d)
Now consider m > 0. Similar to the above, we have
f (d) ≥ f (d1 , . . . , dm , d˜m+1 , . . . , d˜K−1 , dK ) ≥ f (d1 , . . . , dm , d˜m+1 , . . . , d˜K ) − (K − 1)α ·

L
.
˜
(dK )2

And for any j ∈ {1, . . . , m},
˜ ≤ f (dj , d˜−j ) − α · |∂j f (d)|
˜ ≤ f (d1 , . . . , dm , d˜m+1 , . . . , d˜K ) − α · |∂j f (d)|.
˜
f (d)
˜ ≥
Since there is at least one signal j with |∂j f (d)|

1 121
,
LH 2

˜ < f (d)
we can again deduce f (d)

whenever H is much larger than H.

˜ is always the same
Hence, we have shown that S̃ is a profitable deviation from S unless d(t)
division as d(t). By construction, this implies that whenever a signal is observed more than H units
of time, the dynamically optimal strategy S stops observing it until no other signal is deficient. At
time T0 ≥ K · H, some signal must have been observed more than H. Thus di (T0 ) ≥ H ≥ H ∗ for
every signal i, completing the proof of the theorem.

˜ with qi ≥ H, ∀m + 1 ≤ i ≤ K. Then use the previously derived
To see this, let q denote the division d,
inequality (59) to show that either some γj (1 ≤ j ≤ m) is at least 1/2, or the RHS is at least 1/4. The result
121

γj2
qj2

≥

1
LH 2

holds either way.

74

