Persistence, patience and costly information acquisition
Extracted source text ยท arXiv 2603.11453
\documentclass[11pt,oneside]{article}
\input{preamble}
\bodyproofsfalse
\title{Persistence, patience and costly information acquisition}
\author{%
Benjamin Davies\thanks{
Department of Economics, Stanford University; bldavies@stanford.edu.
}
}
\date{Draft version: \today}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\thispagestyle{empty}
\begin{abstract}
\noindent
A forward-looking agent observes signals of a state that follows a Gaussian AR(1) process.
He chooses the signals' precisions sequentially, balancing their marginal cost and informativeness.
I characterize his optimal learning strategy, and analyze his steady-state posterior beliefs and welfare.
Higher persistence can tighten or loosen these beliefs, but always lowers welfare due to endogenously higher information costs.
In contrast, higher patience raises welfare because the agent receives more information from his past selves.
\vskip\baselineskip
\noindent{\itshape Keywords}: AR(1) process, Bayesian learning, information acquisition, patience, persistence\par
\noindent{\itshape JEL classification}: C61, D83
\end{abstract}
\clearpage
\setcounter{page}{1}
\section{Introduction}
This paper studies optimal learning about a time-varying state.
A forward-looking Bayesian agent observes signals of a payoff-relevant state that follows a Gaussian AR(1) process.
He chooses the signals' precisions sequentially, balancing their marginal costs and informativeness.
I characterize the optimal learning strategy and analyze its steady state.
My headline result (Proposition~\ref{prop:steady-state-rho}) says that persistence has a non-monotonic effect on steady-state beliefs.
Higher persistence has two opposing effects:
%
\begin{enumerate}
\item
it makes shocks propagate further into the future, loosening the agent's beliefs;
\item
it raises the future value of information, so the agent acquires more and tightens his beliefs.
\end{enumerate}
%
I show that the first effect dominates the second if and only if persistence is high enough.
However, higher persistence always lowers the agent's steady-state welfare (Proposition~\ref{prop:steady-state-cost}).
This is because the additional information cost outweighs any reduction in posterior variance.
The opposite is true when his discount factor (i.e., patience) rises---although he acquires more information, so do his past selves, and this tightens his beliefs enough to raise his welfare overall.
I obtain these results in a tractable model with Gaussian signals, quadratic payoffs, and linear signal precision costs.
My ``Gaussian-quadratic'' setup is standard in the information acquisition literature \citep{Colombo-etal-2014-REStud,Hellwig-Veldkamp-2009-REStud,Myatt-Wallace-2012-REStud}.
Linear precision costs distinguish my model from the rational inattention literature, which typically assumes entropy-based costs \citep{Mackowiak-Wiederholt-2009-AER,Sims-2003-JME}.
Such costs complicate dynamic analyses because each signal changes future priors and, thus, future costs.
Linear costs are prior-independent and allow me to characterize the optimal learning strategy in closed-form.%
\footnote{
\cite{Pomatto-etal-2023-AER} show that linear costs uniquely satisfy a set of appealing axioms.
}
The closest papers to mine are \cite{Steiner-etal-2017-ECTA}, \cite{Weber-Nguyen-2018-EJOR}, \cite{Immorlica-etal-2021-LeibnizInt.Proc.Inform.LIPIcs}, and \cite{Barilla-2025-}.
All study optimal learning about a time-varying state.
\cite{Steiner-etal-2017-ECTA} assume entropy-based costs, while \cite{Weber-Nguyen-2018-EJOR} assume linear costs.
Neither paper considers the effects of persistence and patience that I study.
\cite{Immorlica-etal-2021-LeibnizInt.Proc.Inform.LIPIcs} study precision allocation across time under a budget constraint, removing the cost-value trade-off that my model highlights.
\citeapos{Barilla-2025-} model has a binary state and endogenous signal timing.
My focus on a continuous state and exogenous timing leads to different results and insights.
% \clearpage
\section{Model}
\label{sec:model}
\paragraph{Environment}
Time is discrete and indexed by~$t\in\N\equiv\{1,2,\ldots\}$.
The state follows a Gaussian AR(1) process~$(\theta_t)_{t\in\N}$ with autocorrelation~$\rho\in(0,1)$, initial value~$\theta_0\sim\Ncal(0,\vz)$, and independent shocks~$\eta_t\sim\Ncal(0,\vm)$:%
\footnote{
An early version of this paper \citep{Davies-2026-} focused on the limiting case when~$\rho\to1$.
}
\[ \theta_t=\rho\theta_{t-1}+\eta_t. \]
I assume~$\vz\ge0$ and~$\vm>0$.
\paragraph{Information}
At each time~$t$, the agent generates a Gaussian signal~$s_t$ of~$\theta_t$ with precision~$x_t\ge0$:
\[ s_t\mid\theta_t\sim\Ncal\left(\theta_t,\,\frac{1}{x_t}\right). \]
He observes the signal history~$\Hcal_t\equiv(s_1,\ldots,s_t)$ and uses it to form posterior beliefs about~$\theta_t$.
\paragraph{Prediction and posterior variances}
Let~$\Hcal_0=\{\}$, and let~$P_t\equiv\Var(\theta_t\mid\Hcal_{t-1})$ and~$V_t\equiv\Var(\theta_t\mid\Hcal_t)$ be the posterior variances of~$\theta_t$ before and after observing~$s_t$.
Well-known results for Gaussian random variables imply
\[ V_t=\left(\frac{1}{P_t}+x_t\right)^{-1}. \]
Thus, given~$P_t>0$, every precision~$x_t\ge0$ corresponds to a unique posterior variance~$V_t\in(0,P_t]$.
I refer to~$P_t$ as a ``prediction variance'' because it equals the variance in the prediction of~$\theta_t$ from time~$(t-1)$.
\paragraph{Costs}
After observing~$\Hcal_t$, the agent takes an action~$a_t\in\R$ with cost~$(a_t-\theta_t)^2$.
He minimizes his expected action cost by choosing~$a_t=\E[\theta_t\mid\Hcal_t]$ to equal the posterior mean of~$\theta_t$ given~$\Hcal_t$.
This yields minimized action cost
\[ \min_{a'\in\R}\E[(a_t-\theta_t)^2\mid\Hcal_t]=V_t. \]
Thus, the agent incurs expected action costs from having imprecise beliefs about the state.
He also incurs costs from generating precise signals.
His overall expected cost at time~$t$ equals
\[ \cost(V_t,P_t)\equiv V_t+c\left(\frac{1}{V_t}-\frac{1}{P_t}\right), \]
where~$c>0$ is the marginal cost of raising the precision~$x_t=1/V_t-1/P_t$ of the signal~$s_t$.%
\footnote{
The cost function~$cx_t$ maps to a setting where the agent can buy any non-negative real number of iid signals at a constant per-unit price.
For example, if each signal has precision~$1/\sigma_\epsilon^2\ge0$ and price~$\kappa>0$, then~$m\ge0$ signals have combined precision~$x\equiv m/\sigma_\epsilon^2$ and cost~$\kappa m=cx$ with~$c\equiv\kappa\sigma_\epsilon^2$.
}
\paragraph{Choices}
The agent has discount factor~$\delta\in[0,1)$.
At each time~$t$, he chooses the posterior variance~$V_t$ (by choosing a corresponding precision~$x_t$) that minimizes the present value
\[ \cost(V_t,P_t)+\sum_{\tau=1}^\infty\delta^\tau\cost(V_{t+\tau},P_{t+\tau}) \]
of his overall costs, given
the variances~$(V_\tau)_{\tau<t}$ he chose at past times and
the variances~$(V_\tau)_{\tau>t}$ he anticipates choosing at future times.
% \paragraph{Bellman equation}
Since~$P_t$ is a sufficient statistic for~$\Hcal_{t-1}$ and since the AR(1) structure implies~$P_{t+1}=\rho^2V_t+\vm$, the minimized present value~$\pv(P_t)$ depends on~$P_t$ only and satisfies the Bellman equation
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bellman}
\pv(P_t)=\min_{V_t\in(0,P_t]}\left\{\cost(V_t,P_t)+\delta\pv(\rho^2V_t+\vm)\right\}.
\end{equation}
%
So the agent's time~$t$ problem is to choose, given~$P_t$, the posterior variance~$V_t$ that minimizes the sum of the current cost~$\cost(V_t,P_t)$ and continuation value~$\delta\pv(\rho^2V_t+\vm)$.
% \clearpage
\section{Optimal learning}
\label{sec:optimal-policy}
Lemma~\ref{lem:optimal-policy} characterizes the optimal posterior variances~$(V_t)_{t\in\N}$ in terms of the (endogenous) prediction variances~$(P_t)_{t\in\N}$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:optimal-policy}
Let~$V^*$ be the unique positive solution to
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:foc}
\frac{1}{(V^*)^2}-\frac{\delta\rho^2}{\left(\rho^2V^*+\vm\right)^2}=\frac{1}{c}.
\end{equation}
%
At each time~$t$, the agent optimally chooses~$V_t=\min\left\{P_t,V^*\right\}$.
\end{lemma}
%
\inputbodyproof{proofs/optimal-policy}
I prove Lemma~\ref{lem:optimal-policy} and all my other results in Appendix~\ref{sec:proofs}.
At each time~$t$, the agent optimally chooses~$V_t$ to equal the minimum of two values: the prediction variance~$P_t$ and a target~$V^*$ defined by~\eqref{eq:foc}.
This target depends on the exogenous parameters~$\rho$, $\vm$, $c$, and $\delta$, but is independent of~$t$.
The agent attains~$V_t$ by generating a signal with precision
\[ x_t=\max\left\{\frac{1}{V^*}-\frac{1}{P_t},0\right\}. \]
Intuitively, if~$P_t$ is small, then the agent optimally generates an uninformative signal (with precision~$x_t=0$) because the marginal value of information is smaller than the cost of acquiring it.
In contrast, if~$P_t$ is large, then he generates an informative signal (with precision~$x_t>0$) that optimally balances
(i)~wanting to be informed and
(ii)~not wanting to pay for information.
The target variance~$V^*$ is the threshold value of~$P_t$ above which the agent generates informative signals.
For example, suppose~$(\rho,\vz,\vm,c,\delta)=(0.5,0,1,1,0)$.
Then~\eqref{eq:foc} has unique solution~$V^*=1$.
At time~$t=1$, the state has prediction variance~$P_1=\rho^2\vz+\vm=1$ and so the agent chooses~$V_1=\min\{1,1\}=1$ by generating a signal with precision~$x_1=0$.
At time~$t=2$, the prediction variance is~$P_2=\rho^2V_1+\vm=1.25$ and he chooses~$V_2=\min\{1.25,1\}=1$ via~$x_2=\max\{1/1-1/1.25,0\}=0.2$.
At time~$t=3$, the prediction variance is~$P_3=1.25$ and he chooses~$V_3=1$ via~$x_3=0.2$ again.
In fact he chooses~$V_t=1$ via~$x_t=0.2$ at each time~$t\ge2$; that is, his optimal strategy converges to a steady state.
I provide sufficient conditions for such convergence in Section~\ref{sec:steady-state}.
% \clearpage
\section{Steady-state analysis}
\label{sec:steady-state}
I henceforth assume the marginal precision cost~$c$ is not too large.
In particular, I assume
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:cost-assumption}
c<\frac{\sigma^4}{(1-\delta\rho^2)(1-\rho^2)^2}.
\end{equation}
%
Under this assumption, the agent's optimal posterior variance is eventually constant across time:
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:steady-state}
Define~$V^*$ as in Lemma~\ref{lem:optimal-policy} and assume~\eqref{eq:cost-assumption} holds.
Then there exists~$t^*\in\N$ such that at each time~$t\ge t^*$, the agent optimally chooses~$V_t=V^*$.
\end{lemma}
%
\inputbodyproof{proofs/steady-state}
If precise signals are not too expensive (i.e., if~\eqref{eq:cost-assumption} holds), then the agent's optimal strategy reaches a steady state in which he sets the posterior variance~$V_t$ equal to the value~$V^*$ defined in Lemma~\ref{lem:optimal-policy}.
For this reason, I call~$V^*$ the ``steady-state posterior variance.''
The agent maintains this variance indefinitely by generating signals with precision
%
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:steady-state-precision}
x^*\equiv\frac{1}{V^*}-\frac{1}{\rho^2V^*+\vm}.
\end{equation}
%
I call~$x^*$ the ``steady-state precision.''
It is strictly positive precisely when~\eqref{eq:cost-assumption} holds:
%
\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:steady-state-precision}
The steady-state precision~$x^*$ exceeds zero if and only if~\eqref{eq:cost-assumption} holds.
\end{lemma}
%
\inputbodyproof{proofs/steady-state-precision}
Thus, assumption~\eqref{eq:cost-assumption} ensures the agent acquires information in the steady state.
The posterior variance~$V^*$ induced by this information depends on the primitives of the agent's environment.
\subsection{How $V^*$ and~$x^*$ depend on primitives}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{figures/steady-state.pdf}
\caption{Steady-state posterior variance~$V^*$ and signal precision~$x^*$ when~$\vm=1$}
\label{fig:steady-state}
\caption*{
\footnotesize
{\itshape Note:}
Solid lines are values where~\eqref{eq:cost-assumption} holds; dashed lines are values where~\eqref{eq:cost-assumption} does not hold.
}
\end{figure}
%
Figure~\ref{fig:steady-state} shows that the steady-state posterior variance~$V^*$ can rise or fall when the autocorrelation~$\rho$ rises.
When~$\rho$ is small, most of the state's variation over time comes from the independent shocks, and so signals generated at one time provide little information about the state's value at future times.
As~$\rho$ rises, each signal becomes more informative about the state's future value.
The return on precision investment rises, and the agent responds by generating more precise signals.
At intermediate values of~$\rho$, the additional precision more than offsets the greater carried-forward variance in the state, making~$V^*$ fall as~$\rho$ rises.
But at high values of~$\rho$, the state is persistent enough that the carried-forward variance dominates the additional precision, making~$V^*$ rise as~$\rho$ rises.
Thus, the steady-state posterior variance~$V^*$ is decreasing in~$\rho$ at small values and increasing at large values.
Proposition~\ref{prop:steady-state-rho} states the exact threshold~$\rho^*$ at which the relationship between~$V^*$ and~$\rho$ changes from negative to positive.%
\footnote{
This threshold may exceed one, in which case~$V^*$ is decreasing in~$\rho$ for all~$\rho\in(0,1)$.
}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:steady-state-rho}
Define
\[ \rho^*\equiv\sqrt{\frac{\delta}{8}+\sqrt{\frac{\delta^2}{64}+\frac{\sigma^4}{c}}}. \]
If~$\delta=0$, then the steady-state posterior variance~$V^*$ is constant in the autocorrelation~$\rho$.
If~$\delta>0$, then~$V^*$ is decreasing in~$\rho$ if and only if~$\rho<\rho^*$.
\end{proposition}
%
\inputbodyproof{proofs/steady-state-rho}
For example, suppose~$(\vm,c,\delta)=(1,4,0.99)$.
Then~$\rho^*\approx0.8$, which is where the bottom curve in the top-right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:steady-state} attains its minimum.
The non-monotonicity of~$V^*$ in~$\rho$ stems from the agent's dynamic incentives: he wants to minimize his overall costs both now and in the future.
Letting~$\delta=0$ removes his dynamic incentives and makes~$V^*=\sqrt{c}$ constant in~$\rho$.
Raising the discount factor~$\delta$ makes the agent care more about his future costs.
He lowers these costs by learning more about the state's current value, lowering~$V^*$ by raising~$x^*$.
Figure~\ref{fig:steady-state} illustrates this behavior for specific parameter values; Proposition~\ref{prop:steady-state-delta} establishes the behavior for \emph{all} parameter values.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:steady-state-delta}
Assume~\eqref{eq:cost-assumption} holds.
Then the steady-state posterior variance~$V^*$ is decreasing in the discount factor~$\delta$, whereas the steady-state precision~$x^*$ is increasing in~$\delta$.
\end{proposition}
%
\inputbodyproof{proofs/steady-state-delta}
Figure~\ref{fig:steady-state} also shows that~$V^*$ and~$x^*$ depend on the marginal precision cost~$c$.
Intuitively, raising~$c$ makes information more expensive, so the agent acquires less (i.e., lowers~$x^*$) and maintains looser posterior beliefs (i.e., raises~$V^*$).
Proposition~\ref{prop:steady-state-c} formalizes this intuition.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:steady-state-c}
Assume~\eqref{eq:cost-assumption} holds.
Then the steady-state posterior variance~$V^*$ is increasing in the marginal precision cost~$c$, whereas the steady-state precision~$x^*$ is decreasing in~$c$.
\end{proposition}
%
\inputbodyproof{proofs/steady-state-c}
\subsection{Welfare}
Finally, I consider the overall cost
%
\begin{align*}
\cost^*
&\equiv \cost(V^*,\rho^2V^*+\vm) \\
&= V^*+cx^*
\end{align*}
%
that the agent incurs at each time in steady state.
I call~$\cost^*$ the ``steady-state cost.''
It measures the agent's long-run welfare: he is better off when~$\cost^*$ is lower.%
\footnote{
Indeed, substituting~$P_t=P^*\equiv\rho^2V^*+\vm$ into the Bellman equation~\eqref{eq:bellman} gives
%
\begin{align*}
\pv(P^*)
&= \min_{V\in(0,P^*]}\left\{\cost(V,P^*)+\delta\pv(\rho^2V+\vm)\right\} \\
&= \cost^*+\delta\pv(P^*).
\end{align*}
%
So~$\cost^*=(1-\delta)\pv(P^*)$ is proportional to the present value of the agent's overall costs in the steady state.
% Intuitively, since the optimal policy is stationary in steady state, the normalized continuation value equals the per-period cost.
}
The non-monotonicity of~$V^*$ in~$\rho$ suggests~$\cost^*$ could also be non-monotone.
Likewise, since~$V^*$ and~$x^*$ move in different directions when~$\delta$ or~$c$ rise, the net effect on~$\cost^*$ is potentially ambiguous.
Proposition~\ref{prop:steady-state-cost} says the effects are, in fact, unambiguous: $\cost^*$ is monotone in \emph{all} of the exogenous parameters that determine~$V^*$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:steady-state-cost}
Assume~\eqref{eq:cost-assumption} holds.
Then the steady-state cost~$\cost^*$ is
%
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)]
increasing in the autocorrelation~$\rho$,
\item[(ii)]
decreasing in the discount factor~$\delta$,
\item[(iii)]
increasing in the marginal precision cost~$c$, and
\item[(iv)]
increasing in the shock variance~$\vm$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
%
\inputbodyproof{proofs/steady-state-cost}
Part~(i) of Proposition~\ref{prop:steady-state-cost} says the agent is worse off when the state is more persistent.
This is because he optimally acquires more information, and the information cost~$cx^*$ rises by more than the posterior variance~$V^*$ may fall.
Part~(ii) says he is better off when he is more patient.
This is because his past selves acquire more information, lowering~$V^*$ enough to offset the cost of his own increased information acquisition.
Finally, parts~(iii) and~(iv) say he is worse off when information is more expensive and when shocks have higher variance.
This is because he has to spend more on information to maintain a given posterior variance.
% \clearpage
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
This paper studies optimal learning about a time-varying state.
I assume the state follows a Gaussian AR(1) process, and that a Bayesian agent observes Gaussian signals and takes actions with quadratic state-dependent payoffs.
These assumptions make my model tractable and yield simple expressions for the optimal sequential learning strategy.
I characterize this strategy and analyze its steady state.
Higher persistence can tighten or loosen the agent's steady-state beliefs, but always lowers his steady-state welfare.
In contrast, higher patience raises his welfare because he receives more information from his past selves.
My model speaks to a range of empirical settings.
Portfolio managers and central banks who track time-varying fundamentals (e.g., inflation and exchange rates) face exactly the information value-cost trade-off that I study.
My non-monotonicity result (Proposition~\ref{prop:steady-state-rho}) implies information should be acquired most intensively for fundamentals with intermediate persistence.
Consumers choosing how much news to read, firms conducting market research, and laboratories testing vaccines for mutating viruses must all answer the question I ask in this paper: how should one learn about a changing world?
Natural extensions of my model are to non-Gaussian processes, non-quadratic payoffs, and endogenous signal timing.
One could also consider agents with mis-specified beliefs about how the state evolves.
I defer these extensions to future research.
\clearpage
{
\raggedright
\bibliographystyle{apalike}
\bibliography{references}
}
\appendix
\clearpage
\section{Proofs}
\label{sec:proofs}
\counterwithin{equation}{section}
\counterwithin{lemma}{section}
\counterwithin{proposition}{section}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\setcounter{lemma}{0}
\setcounter{proposition}{0}
\inputappendixproof{proofs/optimal-policy}
\inputappendixproof{proofs/steady-state}
\inputappendixproof{proofs/steady-state-precision}
\inputappendixproof{proofs/steady-state-rho}
\inputappendixproof{proofs/steady-state-delta}
\inputappendixproof{proofs/steady-state-c}
\inputappendixproof{proofs/steady-state-cost}
\end{document}
% Fonts and layout ----
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[margin=1in]{geometry}
\usepackage{mathpazo}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\linespread{1.15}
\newcommand{\blue}[1]{\textcolor{blue}{#1}}
\newcommand{\red}[1]{\textcolor{red}{#1}}
\newcommand{\TBC}{\red{TBC}}
\newif\ifshowtodos
\showtodostrue
\newcommand{\TODO}[1]{\ifshowtodos\par{\color{red}\begin{quote}TODO:#1\end{quote}}\par\fi}
% Floats ----
\usepackage{booktabs}
\usepackage{caption}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\let\oldincludegraphics\includegraphics%
\renewcommand{\includegraphics}[2][]{\IfFileExists{#2}{\oldincludegraphics[#1]{#2}}{\red{[FILE NOT FOUND]}}}
% Math commands ----
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{amsthm}
\DeclareMathOperator{\E}{\mathbb{E}}
\DeclareMathOperator{\Var}{\mathbb{V}}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmax}{arg\,max}
\DeclareMathOperator*{\argmin}{arg\,min}
\newcommand{\Abs}[1]{\left\lvert#1\right\rvert}
\newcommand{\abs}[1]{\lvert#1\rvert}
\newcommand{\cost}{C}
\newcommand{\der}{\mathrm{d}}
\newcommand{\derfrac}[2]{\frac{\der #1}{\der #2}}
\newcommand{\Hcal}{\mathcal{H}}
\newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}}
\newcommand{\Ncal}{\mathcal{N}}
\newcommand{\parfrac}[2]{\frac{\partial #1}{\partial #2}}
\newcommand{\pv}{\Psi}
\newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\vm}{\sigma^2}
\newcommand{\vz}{\sigma_0^2}
\renewcommand{\epsilon}{\varepsilon}
\let\oldleft\left
\let\oldright\right
\renewcommand{\left}{\mathopen{}\mathclose\bgroup\oldleft}
\renewcommand{\right}{\aftergroup\egroup\oldright}
\newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newif\ifbodyproofs
\bodyproofstrue
\newcommand{\inputbodyproof}[1]{\ifbodyproofs\input{#1}\fi}
\newcommand{\inputappendixproof}[1]{\ifbodyproofs\else\input{#1}\fi}
% Environment edits ----
\usepackage{needspace}
\AtBeginEnvironment{lemma}{\Needspace*{4\baselineskip}}
\AtBeginEnvironment{proposition}{\Needspace*{4\baselineskip}}
\AtBeginEnvironment{theorem}{\Needspace*{4\baselineskip}}
% References ----
\usepackage{natbib}
\setlength{\bibsep}{0pt plus 0.3ex}
\newcommand\citeapos[1]{\citeauthor{#1}'s (\citeyear{#1})}
\begin{thebibliography}{}
\bibitem[Barilla, 2025]{Barilla-2025-}
Barilla, C. (2025).
\newblock When and what to learn in a changing world.
\newblock {{arXiv}} preprint 2510.17757.
\bibitem[Colombo et~al., 2014]{Colombo-etal-2014-REStud}
Colombo, L., Femminis, G., and Pavan, A. (2014).
\newblock Information {{Acquisition}} and {{Welfare}}.
\newblock {\em Review of Economic Studies}, 81(4):1438--1483.
\bibitem[Davies, 2026]{Davies-2026-}
Davies, B. (2026).
\newblock Learning about a changing state.
\newblock {{arXiv}} preprint 2401.03607.
\bibitem[Hellwig and Veldkamp, 2009]{Hellwig-Veldkamp-2009-REStud}
Hellwig, C. and Veldkamp, L. (2009).
\newblock Knowing {{What Others Know}}: {{Coordination Motives}} in {{Information Acquisition}}.
\newblock {\em Review of Economic Studies}, 76(1):223--251.
\bibitem[Immorlica et~al., 2021]{Immorlica-etal-2021-LeibnizInt.Proc.Inform.LIPIcs}
Immorlica, N., Kash, I.~A., and Lucier, B. (2021).
\newblock Buying {{Data Over Time}}: {{Approximately Optimal Strategies}} for {{Dynamic Data-Driven Decisions}}.
\newblock In {\em Leibniz {{International Proceedings}} in {{Informatics}} ({{LIPIcs}})}, volume 185, pages 77:1--77:14, Dagstuhl, Germany.
\bibitem[Ma{\'c}kowiak and Wiederholt, 2009]{Mackowiak-Wiederholt-2009-AER}
Ma{\'c}kowiak, B. and Wiederholt, M. (2009).
\newblock Optimal {{Sticky Prices}} under {{Rational Inattention}}.
\newblock {\em American Economic Review}, 99(3):769--803.
\bibitem[Myatt and Wallace, 2012]{Myatt-Wallace-2012-REStud}
Myatt, D.~P. and Wallace, C. (2012).
\newblock Endogenous {{Information Acquisition}} in {{Coordination Games}}.
\newblock {\em Review of Economic Studies}, 79(1):340--374.
\bibitem[Pomatto et~al., 2023]{Pomatto-etal-2023-AER}
Pomatto, L., Strack, P., and Tamuz, O. (2023).
\newblock The {{Cost}} of {{Information}}: {{The Case}} of {{Constant Marginal Costs}}.
\newblock {\em American Economic Review}, 113(5):1360--1393.
\bibitem[Sims, 2003]{Sims-2003-JME}
Sims, C.~A. (2003).
\newblock Implications of rational inattention.
\newblock {\em Journal of Monetary Economics}, 50(3):665--690.
\bibitem[Steiner et~al., 2017]{Steiner-etal-2017-ECTA}
Steiner, J., Stewart, C., and Mat{\v e}jka, F. (2017).
\newblock Rational {{Inattention Dynamics}}: {{Inertia}} and {{Delay}} in {{Decision-Making}}.
\newblock {\em Econometrica}, 85(2):521--553.
\bibitem[Weber and Nguyen, 2018]{Weber-Nguyen-2018-EJOR}
Weber, T.~A. and Nguyen, V.~A. (2018).
\newblock A linear-quadratic {{Gaussian}} approach to dynamic information acquisition.
\newblock {\em European Journal of Operational Research}, 270(1):260--281.
\end{thebibliography}