cs.LGAug 24, 2026

Revelation Control

Authors: Qinyou Wang

Read PDF
Ask AI
Cite

Copy citation

DOINot available for this paper

Abstract

Revelation Control is the problem of choosing priced interventions that reveal hidden state only insofar as the revealed distinctions can change a consequential decision, while accounting separately for any useful progress created by the intervention itself. We develop this theory for learning systems, where states equivalent under declared current information can respond differently to future training and favor different actions. The framework defines decision-sufficient revelation and revelation depth, separates pure information value from productive reuse, embeds static Bayes refinement into state-dependent continuation value, and gives an exact cost-adjusted factorization criterion: an additional shallow coordinate is decision-nonredundant only when states sharing a scalar summary lie on opposite sides of the priced Stop/Continue boundary. We also give a target-independent protocol for model-specific instantiation and prove that bounded stop-flip risk alone cannot certify positive expected utility under unrestricted severity. Across Qwen2.5-7B and Mistral-7B-v0.3, deeper future-learning probes have positive decision value and productive reuse yields strict equal-compute utility advantages. Qwen additionally provides evidence for a decision-nonredundant shallow revealability regime; in Mistral, a scalar continuation architecture fit only on an independent development panel retains positive familywise-adjusted lower bounds on a disjoint target panel, consistent with scalar decision sufficiency within the tested architecture family and resolution. The evidence supports structural rather than numerical transfer: the decision theory, cost accounting, continuation logic, and evaluation protocol transport, while empirical proxies, coefficients, thresholds, and even the required shallow state dimension may be system-specific.

Figures & tables

Figure 1: Decision-relative revelation. A coarse information cell can contain learning states that require different terminal actions. Deeper future-learning responses are useful only when they separate that decision quotient; full hidden-state reconstruction is unnecessary.
Figure 2: Equal-budget compute geometry for the two-action H12 comparison. Restart probing discards both H4 trials and executes the selected action freshly; productive revelation probes both actions to H8 and retains the selected tested prefix. Both consume 20 policy-visible updates, but promotion buys twice the revelation depth in the two-action case.
Figure 3: Schematic margin–revealability geometry implied by Theorem 5.5 . At fixed compute price, larger current decision margins require greater state-dependent revealability to justify deeper future learning. The paired points illustrate the nonredundant case in which two states with the same current margin can fall on opposite sides of the stopping boundary because their revealability differs. The curve σh=g(∣mh∣)\sigma_{h}=g(|m_{h}|) illustrates the stronger value-redundant special case in which continuation value itself reduces to a scalar function. More generally, scalar decision sufficiency requires only that the accessible states at a fixed margin remain on one side of the priced boundary; residual revealability variation is allowed. The boundary is theoretical and schematic, not an empirical fit.
Method / theoryPartial trainingProspective training signalPath reuseHidden learning-state decision aliasingExplicit finite-sample value ledger
Freeze–Thaw [ 37 ]yeslearning curvespause/resumenono
Hyperband [ 25 ]yesintermediate performancecontinuation of survivorsnono
PBT [ 17 ]yespopulation performanceyesnono
DynaMiCS [ 14 ]yeslocal cross-domain slopesnonono
Risk-controlled early exit [ 35 , 19 ]noshallow/deep prediction signalnonorisk control, not utility ledger
Revelation Control (this work)yesfuture-learning responsepromotion separated from information valuecentral targetyes
Table 1: Novelty boundary relative to representative neighboring methods. Entries describe the central mechanism emphasized by each work, not every implementation variant.
QuantityIndependent panel A (336)Independent panel B (336)
Minimum point margin1.2136812 ⁣× ⁣10−41.2136812\!\times\!10^{-4}1.4878650 ⁣× ⁣10−41.4878650\!\times\!10^{-4}
Minimum Student- tt LCB6.9363323 ⁣× ⁣10−56.9363323\!\times\!10^{-5}9.4261533 ⁣× ⁣10−59.4261533\!\times\!10^{-5}
Minimum bootstrap LCB7.0252125 ⁣× ⁣10−57.0252125\!\times\!10^{-5}9.5137645 ⁣× ⁣10−59.5137645\!\times\!10^{-5}
Minimum max- tt LCB4.4947532 ⁣× ⁣10−54.4947532\!\times\!10^{-5}6.9209070 ⁣× ⁣10−56.9209070\!\times\!10^{-5}
Comparators satisfying criterion22/2222/22
Table 2: Independent Qwen2.5-7B validation against the 22-component current-information library. Each entry is the worst component across the declared comparator set; positive lower bounds are required simultaneously.
Figure 4: Two independent Qwen2.5-7B panels across all 22 current-information comparators. Open squares mark simultaneous max- tt 95% lower confidence bounds and filled circles mark realized point margins. Every lower-bound endpoint remains strictly positive; the two panels are not pooled.
BankXi -selected meanLCBKeep -selected meanUCB
T1T_{1}2.9246×10−42.9246\times 10^{-4}6.5097×10−56.5097\times 10^{-5}−4.1166×10−4-4.1166\times 10^{-4}−2.2471×10−4-2.2471\times 10^{-4}
T2T_{2}3.6323×10−43.6323\times 10^{-4}9.5547×10−59.5547\times 10^{-5}−2.8389×10−4-2.8389\times 10^{-4}−8.2269×10−5-8.2269\times 10^{-5}
Table 3: Independent-bank structural sign replication inside the fixed H4 frontier-ambiguity event. Bounds are one-sided 95% Student- tt bounds.
Model / evidence blockProductive pathEnd-to-end pointOne-sided 95% LCB
Qwen, independent panel 18.9913×10−58.9913\times 10^{-5}8.9515×10−58.9515\times 10^{-5}2.9246×10−52.9246\times 10^{-5}
Qwen, independent panel 21.4776×10−41.4776\times 10^{-4}1.4737×10−41.4737\times 10^{-4}8.8394×10−58.8394\times 10^{-5}
Mistral, independent family3.0939×10−43.0939\times 10^{-4}2.9748×10−42.9748\times 10^{-4}2.0016×10−42.0016\times 10^{-4}
Table 4: Equal-compute productive-revelation evidence across the two Transformer families. The two Qwen rows use independent productive-path panels and are not pooled.
Theoretical implicationQwen2.5-7B evidenceMistral-7B-v0.3 evidence
Decision-relevant shallow aliasingFixed H4 ambiguity cell contains H8-refined groups with opposite terminal action gaps in two independent banks.Using the H4 threshold fixed from development data, the bank-A-defined ambiguity cell contains 216/480 anchors, including 88 stable- Xi and 58 stable- Keep anchors whose terminal-gap signs agree across both banks (descriptive structural check).
Positive value of deeper revelationH8 beats the declared current-information library on two independent 336-anchor panels; the separate 480-history H8-over-H4 value is strictly positive.Exact-anchor H8-over-H4 value 2.2509×10−42.2509\times 10^{-4} with positive tt and bootstrap lower bounds.
Productive information-to-utility closureProductive path value is positive in two independent panels and yields strict 20-update end-to-end advantage over the strengthened restart frontier.Same-path reuse 3.0939×10−43.0939\times 10^{-4} and equal-compute end-to-end advantage 2.9748×10−42.9748\times 10^{-4} , both with positive lower bounds.
Adaptive Revelation ControlSupporting evidence for incremental decision value from a nonredundant revealability coordinate; a held-out bounded-risk safe-compute evaluation has positive panel net-value lower bounds.Consistent with scalar decision sufficiency at the tested resolution; a familywise structural validation of the scalar continuation architecture, fit only on the separate development panel, retains positive Bonferroni-adjusted exact-anchor tt and bootstrap lower bounds within the two-element pre-existing architecture family.
Risk–severity boundaryPositive held-out safe-compute behavior is explicitly limited to panel-level evidence without an unrestricted tail guarantee.Sub-2% stop–flip risk coexists with nonpositive risk-controller net value because a few flips have high severity.
Table 5: Theory-level evidence across the two Transformer families. The fixed-depth and equal-compute Mistral results use an independent target panel; the adaptive row evaluates a pre-existing two-architecture family with familywise-adjusted inference.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset

Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.

Appendix

DirectionStop rateStop–flip rateHarm eventsMax harm severityNet value
A →\to B26.67%0.833%12.083×10−42.083\times 10^{-4}+1.186×10−5+1.186\times 10^{-5}
B →\to A11.67%0.417%12.010×10−32.010\times 10^{-3}−4.331×10−6-4.331\times 10^{-6}
Appendix
Table 6: Held-out risk–severity diagnostic for a derived risk-calibrated stopping rule. Net value is relative to always-H8.
More in this topic

Active Information Gathering

Active information gathering studies how agents choose questions, tests, or observations that reduce uncertainty and improve decisions under interaction costs.

See all 26 papers

Explore similar work

CardsList

  1. A Score Is Not a Policy: Measuring the Value of Adaptive Revision

    Sep 1, 2026Ayushi ChadhaHierarchical RLAdaptive Computation

  2. Decision Sufficiency of Learned Representation Interfaces for Safe Generative Control

    Oct 20, 2026Jipeng Li, Yanning ShenLanguage Model-Based ControlLanguage Model Safety Evaluation

    University of California, Irvine

  3. Jev-DLC: Decision-Level Continual Learning from Typed Feedback

    Oct 22, 2026Yangyang Feng, Jianle Gan, Zhuoyan Feng +1User Preference Modeling

    The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Sun Yat-sen University