arXiv subjects

Michal Feldman

Publications and source records attributed to Michal Feldman.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Online Multi-Agent Contracts

We introduce and study an online variant of the multi-agent contract model. In our model, agents arrive one-by-one and are active with a certain probability. Upon arrival of agent $i$, the principal offers a linear contract $\alpha_i$, specifying the fraction of the principal's reward transferred to agent $i$. Agents can either exert effort or not, incurring a cost if they do. The set of agents that exert effort determines the principal's expected reward through a reward function $f$. After all agents have arrived, the agents form a (pure) Nash equilibrium. As our main result we design an $O(1)$-competitive policy for submodular rewards, compared to the offline optimum. We also show that this result is tight in two ways. First, if we require that agents make decisions on the spot, then for submodular rewards any policy is $\Omega((\log n)/(\log \log n)^2)$-competitive. Second, for the broader class of XOS (a.k.a., fractionally subadditive) rewards, any online policy is $\Omega((\log \log n)/(\log \log \log n))$-competitive. The latter result reveals a surprising separation between submodular and XOS rewards: unlike related settings such as offline contract design and prophet inequalities, where constant-factor guarantees for submodular rewards extend to XOS rewards, the online contract setting separates the two classes.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Epistemic Pairwise Maximin Share

We introduce epistemic pairwise maximin share (EPMMS), a new fairness notion for fair division of indivisible goods. Two fundamental notions in this setting are envy-freeness up to any item (EFX) and pairwise maximin share (PMMS), with PMMS being stronger than EFX. While EFX has been extensively studied, far less is known about PMMS. Recent work shows that relaxing EFX via an epistemic perspective leads to substantial progress on the EFX problem, raising the question of whether a similar approach can advance our understanding of PMMS. Motivated by this, we initiate the study of EPMMS, the epistemic relaxation of PMMS. EPMMS is more challenging than EEFX: the key approaches underlying recent progress on epistemic EFX inherently fail to extend to EPMMS. We establish the following results. (1) For additive valuations, $4/5$-EPMMS allocations exist and can be efficiently computed. (2) For bivalued valuations, EPMMS allocations exist and can be efficiently computed; in fact, we obtain the stronger guarantee of epistemic groupwise maximin share (EGMMS), which also strengthens the existence of MMS allocations for this setting. (3) We prove that EPMMS allocations exist in two settings where MMS allocations need not exist: instances with three additive agents or two types of additive agents.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Combinatorial Contracts Through Demand Types

In the combinatorial action model of contract design, a principal delegates a complex project to an agent, incentivizing a subset of actions from a ground set of $n$ actions, via a linear contract. Computing the optimal contract is a challenging problem that generally hinges on two factors: (i) the number of "critical values" - values of the linear contract parameter at which the agent's best response changes from one set to another, and (ii) the complexity of the agent's best-response problem (demand query). Prior work has used this approach to devise polynomial-time algorithms for the optimal contract problem under specific reward functions: gross substitutes, supermodular, and ultra. We develop a unified geometric framework for algorithmic contract design by establishing a fundamental link to the theory of demand types from consumer theory. Under this geometric view, bounding the number of critical values reduces to counting the best-response regions which the "contract ray" pierces. Leveraging this connection, we introduce the class of All Substitutes and Complements (ASC) functions, and show that it admits at most $O(n^2)$ critical values, strictly generalizing and unifying all previously known classes admitting poly-many critical values. We conjecture that, under some mild assumptions, ASC is the maximal such class. Turning to the demand query aspect, we develop a new technique for efficiently computing a demand query using value queries, which works in general for "succinct" demand types. Combining these structural and algorithmic results, we obtain polynomial-time algorithms for new classes of reward functions that exhibit substitutes and complements simultaneously.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Equal-Pay Contracts

We study multi-agent contract design, where a principal incentivizes a team of agents to take costly actions that jointly determine the project success via a combinatorial reward function. While prior work largely focuses on unconstrained contracts that allow heterogeneous payments across agents, many real-world environments limit payment dispersion. Motivated by this, we study equal-pay contracts, where all agents receive identical payments. Our results also extend to nearly-equal-pay contracts where any two payments are identical up to a constant factor. We provide both algorithmic and hardness results across a broad hierarchy of reward functions, under both binary and combinatorial action models. While we focus on equal-pay contracts, our analysis also yields new insights into unconstrained contract design, and resolves two important open problems. On the positive side, we design polynomial-time O(1)-approximation algorithms for (i) submodular rewards under combinatorial actions, and (ii) XOS rewards under binary actions. These guarantees are tight: We rule out the existence of (i) a PTAS for combinatorial actions, even for gross substitutes rewards (unless P = NP), and (ii) any O(1)-approximation for XOS rewards with combinatorial actions. Crucially, our hardness results hold even for unconstrained contracts, thereby settling the corresponding open problems in this setting. Finally, we quantify the loss induced by fairness via the price of equality, defined as the worst-case ratio between the optimal principal's utility achievable by unconstrained contracts and that achievable by equal-pay contracts. We obtain a bound of $\Theta(\log n/ \log \log n)$, where $n$ is the number of agents. This gap is tight in a strong sense: the upper bound applies even for XOS rewards with combinatorial actions, while the lower bound arises already for additive rewards with binary actions.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

One Action Too Many: Inapproximability of Budgeted Combinatorial Contracts

We study multi-agent contract design with combinatorial actions, under budget constraints, and for a broad class of objective functions, including profit (principal's utility), reward, and welfare. Our first result is a strong impossibility: For submodular reward functions, no randomized poly-time algorithm can approximate the optimal budget-feasible value within \textit{any finite factor}, even with demand-oracle access. This result rules out extending known constant-factor guarantees from either (i) unbudgeted settings with combinatorial actions or (ii) budgeted settings with binary actions, to their combination. The hardness is tight: It holds even when all but one agent have binary actions and the remaining agent has just one additional action. On the positive side, we show that gross substitutes rewards (a well-studied strict subclass of submodular functions) admit a deterministic poly-time $O(1)$-approximation, using only value queries. Our results thus draw the first sharp separation between budgeted and unbudgeted settings in combinatorial contracts, and identifies gross substitutes as a tractable frontier for budgeted combinatorial contracts. Finally, we present an FPTAS for additive rewards, demonstrating that arbitrary approximation is tractable under any budget. This constitutes the first FPTAS for the multi-agent combinatorial-actions setting, even in the absence of budget constraints.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Black-Box Lifting and Robustness Theorems for Multi-Agent Contracts

Multi-agent contract design has largely evaluated contracts through the lens of pure Nash equilibria (PNE). This focus, however, is not without loss: In general, the principal can strictly gain by recommending a complex, possibly correlated, distribution over actions, while preserving incentive compatibility. In this work, we extend the analysis of multi-agent contracts beyond pure Nash equilibria to encompass more general equilibrium notions, including mixed Nash equilibria as well as (coarse-)correlated equilibria (CCE). The latter, in particular, captures the limiting outcome of agents engaged in learning dynamics. Our main result shows that for submodular and, more generally, XOS rewards, such complex recommendations yield at most a constant-factor gain: there exists a contract and a PNE whose utility is within a constant factor of the best CCE achievable by any contract. This provides a black-box lifting: results established against the best PNE automatically apply with respect to the best CCE, with only a constant factor loss. For submodular rewards, we further show how to transform a contract and a PNE of that contract into a new contract such that any of its CCEs gives a constant approximation to the PNE. This yields black-box robustness: up to constant factors, guarantees established for a specific contract and PNE automatically extend to the modified contract and any of its CCEs. We thus expand prior guarantees for multi-agent contracts and lower the barrier to new ones. As an important corollary, we obtain poly-time algorithms for submodular rewards that achieve constant approximations in any CCE, against the best CCE under the best contract. Such worst-case guarantees are provably unattainable for XOS rewards. Finally, we bound the gap between different equilibrium notions for subadditive, supermodular, and general rewards.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Combinatorial Contract Design: Recent Progress and Emerging Frontiers

Contract theory studies how a principal can incentivize agents to exert costly, unobservable effort through performance-based payments. While classical economic models provide elegant characterizations of optimal solutions, modern applications, ranging from online labor markets and healthcare to AI delegation and blockchain protocols, call for an algorithmic perspective. The challenge is no longer only which contracts induce desired behavior, but whether such contracts can be computed efficiently. This viewpoint has given rise to \emph{algorithmic contract design}, paralleling the rise of algorithmic mechanism design two decades ago. This article focuses on \emph{combinatorial contracts}, an emerging frontier within algorithmic contract design, where agents may choose among exponentially many combinations of actions, or where multiple agents must work together as a team, and the challenge lies in selecting the right composition. These models capture a wide variety of real-world contracting environments, from hospitals coordinating physicians across treatment protocols to firms hiring teams of engineers for interdependent tasks. We review three combinatorial settings: (i) a single agent choosing multiple actions, (ii) multiple agents with binary actions, and (iii) multiple agents each selecting multiple actions. For each, we highlight structural insights, algorithmic techniques, and complexity barriers. Results include tractable cases such as gross substitutes reward functions, hardness results, and approximation guarantees under value- and demand-oracle access. By charting these advances, the article maps the emerging landscape of combinatorial contract design, and highlights fundamental open questions and promising directions for future work.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Online Combinatorial Allocation with Interdependent Values

We study online combinatorial allocation problems in the secretary setting, under interdependent values. In the interdependent model, introduced by Milgrom and Weber (1982), each agent possesses a private signal that captures her information about an item for sale, and the value of every agent depends on the signals held by all agents. Mauras, Mohan, and Reiffenh\"auser (2024) were the first to study interdependent values in online settings, providing constant-approximation guarantees for secretary settings, where agents arrive online along with their signals and values, and the goal is to select the agent with the highest value. In this work, we extend this framework to {\em combinatorial} secretary problems, where agents have interdependent valuations over {\em bundles} of items, introducing additional challenges due to both combinatorial structure and interdependence. We provide $2e$-competitive algorithms for a broad class of valuation functions, including submodular and XOS functions, matching the approximation guarantees in the single-choice secretary setting. Furthermore, our results cover the same range of valuation classes for which constant-factor algorithms exist in classical (non-interdependent) secretary settings, while incurring only an additional factor of $2$ due to interdependence. Finally, we extend our study to strategic settings, and provide a $4e$-competitive truthful mechanism for online bipartite matching with interdependent valuations, again meeting the frontier of what is known, even without interdependence.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Ultra Efficient Contracts: Pushing the Boundaries of Tractable Contract Design

We study the optimal contract problem in the \emph{combinatorial actions} framework of D\"utting et al.~[FOCS'21], where a principal delegates a project to an agent who chooses a subset of hidden, costly actions, and the resulting reward is given by a monotone set function over the actions. The principal offers a contract that specifies the fraction of the reward the agent receives, and the goal is to compute a contract that maximizes the principal's expected utility. Prior work established polynomial-time algorithms for \emph{gross substitutes} rewards, while showing NP-hardness for general submodular rewards; subsequent work extended tractability to \emph{supermodular} rewards, demonstrating that tractable cases exist in both the substitutes and complements regimes. This left open the precise boundary of tractability for the optimal contract problem. Our main result is a polynomial-time algorithm for the optimal contract problem under \Ultra\ rewards, a class that strictly contains gross substitutes but is not confined to subadditive rewards, thereby bridging the substitutes and complements regimes. We further extend our results beyond additive costs, establishing a polynomial-time algorithm for \Ultra\ rewards and cost functions that are the sum of additive and symmetric functions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first application of \Ultra\ functions in a prominent economic setting.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Budget-Feasible Contracts

The problem of computing near-optimal contracts in combinatorial settings has recently attracted significant interest in the computer science community. Previous work has provided a rich body of structural and algorithmic insights into this problem. However, most of these results rely on the assumption that the principal has an unlimited budget for incentivizing agents, an assumption that is often unrealistic in practice. This motivates the study of the optimal contract problem under budget constraints. In this work, we study multi-agent contracts with binary actions under budget constraints. Our contribution is threefold. First, we show that all previously known approximation guarantees on the principal's utility extend (asymptotically) to budgeted settings. Second, through the lens of budget constraints, we uncover insightful connections between the standard objective of maximizing the principal's utility and other relevant objectives. Specifically, we identify a broad class of objectives, which we term BEST (BEyond STandard) objectives, including reward, social welfare, and principal's utility, and show that they are all equivalent (up to a constant factor), leading to approximation guarantees for all BEST objectives. Third, we introduce the price of frugality, which quantifies the loss due to budget constraints, and establish near-tight bounds on this measure, providing deeper insights into the tradeoffs between budgets and incentives.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Succinct Ambiguous Contracts

Real-world contracts are often ambiguous. While recent work by D\"utting, Feldman, Peretz, and Samuelson (EC 2023, Econometrica 2024) demonstrates that ambiguous contracts can yield large gains for the principal, their optimal solutions often require deploying an impractically large menu of contracts. This paper investigates \emph{succinct} ambiguous contracts, which are restricted to consist of at most $k$ classic contracts. By letting $k$ range from $1$ to $n-1$, this yields an interpolation between classic contracts ($k=1$) and unrestricted ambiguous contracts ($k=n-1$). This perspective enables important structural and algorithmic results. First, we establish a fundamental separability property: for any number of actions $n$ and any succinctness level $k$, computing an optimal $k$-ambiguous contract reduces to finding optimal classic contracts over a suitable partition of the actions, up to an additive balancing shift acting as a base payment. Second, we show bounds on the principal's loss from using a $k$-ambiguous rather than an unrestricted ambiguous contract, which uncover a striking discontinuity in the principal's utility regarding contract size: lacking even a single contract option may cause the principal's utility to drop sharply by a multiplicative factor of $2$, a bound we prove to be tight. Finally, we characterize the tractability frontier of the optimal $k$-ambiguous contract problem. Our separability result yields a poly-time algorithm whenever the number of partitions of $n-1$ actions into $k$ sets is polynomial, recovering and extending known results for classic and unrestricted ambiguous contracts. We complement this with a tight hardness result, showing that the problem is \textsf{NP}-hard whenever the number of partitions is super-polynomial. Moreover, when $k \approx n/3$, the problem is even hard to approximate.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Fair Division via Resource Augmentation

We introduce and formalize the notion of resource augmentation for maximin share (MMS) fairness for the allocation of indivisible goods. Given an instance with $n$ agents and $m$ goods, we ask how many copies of the goods should be added in order to guarantee that each agent receives at least their original MMS value, or a meaningful approximation thereof. For general monotone valuations, we establish a tight bound: an exact MMS allocation can be guaranteed using at most $\Theta(m/e)$ total copies, and this bound is tight even for XOS valuations. We further show that it is unavoidable to duplicate some goods $\Omega(\ln m / \ln \ln m)$ times, and provide matching upper bounds. For additive valuations, we show that at most $\min\{n-2,\lfloor\frac{m}{3}\rfloor(1+o(1))\}$ distinct copies suffice. This separates additive valuations from submodular valuations, for which we show that $n-1$ copies may be necessary. We also study approximate MMS guarantees for additive valuations and establish new tradeoffs between the number of copies needed and the approximation guaratee. In particular, we prove that $\lfloor{n/2}\rfloor$ copies suffice to guarantee a $6/7$-approximation to the original MMS, and $\lfloor{n/3}\rfloor$ copies suffice for a $4/5$-approximation. Both results improve upon the best-known approximation guarantees for additive valuations in the absence of copies. Finally, we relate MMS with copies to the relaxed notion of 1-out-of-$d$ MMS, showing that improvements in either framework translate directly to the other. In particular, we establish the first impossibility results for 1-out-of-$d$ MMS. Our results highlight the power and limits of resource augmentation for achieving MMS fairness.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

The Pseudo-Dimension of Contracts

Algorithmic contract design studies scenarios where a principal incentivizes an agent to exert effort on her behalf. In this work, we focus on settings where the agent's type is drawn from an unknown distribution, and formalize an offline learning framework for learning near-optimal contracts from sample agent types. A central tool in our analysis is the notion of pseudo-dimension from statistical learning theory. Beyond its role in establishing upper bounds on the sample complexity, pseudo-dimension measures the intrinsic complexity of a class of contracts, offering a new perspective on the tradeoffs between simplicity and optimality in contract design. Our main results provide essentially optimal tradeoffs between pseudo-dimension and representation error (defined as the loss in principal's utility) with respect to linear and bounded contracts. Using these tradeoffs, we derive sample- and time-efficient learning algorithms, and demonstrate their near-optimality by providing almost matching lower bounds on the sample complexity. Conversely, for unbounded contracts, we prove an impossibility result showing that no learning algorithm exists. Finally, we extend our techniques in three important ways. First, we provide refined pseudo-dimension and sample complexity guarantees for the combinatorial actions model, revealing a novel connection between the number of critical values and sample complexity. Second, we extend our results to menus of contracts, showing that their pseudo-dimension scales linearly with the menu size. Third, we adapt our algorithms to the online learning setting, where we show that, a polynomial number of type samples suffice to learn near-optimal bounded contracts. Combined with prior work, this establishes a formal separation between expert advice and bandit feedback for this setting.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Algorithmic Contract Theory: A Survey

A contract is an economic tool used by a principal to incentivize one or more agents to exert effort on her behalf, by defining payments based on observable performance measures. A key challenge addressed by contracts -- known in economics as moral hazard -- is that, absent a properly set up contract, agents might engage in actions that are not in the principal's best interest. Another common feature of contracts is limited liability, which means that payments can go only from the principal -- who has the deep pocket -- to the agents. With classic applications of contract theory moving online, growing in scale, and becoming more data-driven, tools from contract theory become increasingly important for incentive-aware algorithm design. At the same time, algorithm design offers a whole new toolbox for reasoning about contracts, ranging from additional tools for studying the tradeoff between simple and optimal contracts, through a language for discussing the computational complexity of contracts in combinatorial settings, to a formalism for analyzing data-driven contracts. This survey aims to provide a computer science-friendly introduction to the basic concepts of contract theory. We give an overview of the emerging field of "algorithmic contract theory" and highlight work that showcases the potential for interaction between the two areas. We also discuss avenues for future research.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Proportionally Fair Makespan Approximation

We study fair mechanisms for the classic job scheduling problem on unrelated machines with the objective of minimizing the makespan. This problem is equivalent to minimizing the egalitarian social cost in the fair division of chores. The two prevalent fairness notions in the fair division literature are envy-freeness and proportionality. Prior work has established that no envy-free mechanism can provide better than an $\Omega(\log m/ \log \log m)$-approximation to the optimal makespan, where $m$ is the number of machines, even when payments to the machines are allowed. In strong contrast to this impossibility, our main result demonstrates that there exists a proportional mechanism (with payments) that achieves a $3/2$-approximation to the optimal makespan, and this ratio is tight. To prove this result, we provide a full characterization of allocation functions that can be made proportional with payments. Furthermore, we show that for instances with normalized costs, there exists a proportional mechanism that achieves the optimal makespan. We conclude with important directions for future research concerning other fairness notions, including relaxations of envy-freeness. Notably, we show that the technique leading to the impossibility result for envy-freeness does not extend to its relaxations.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Pandora's Box Problem With Time Constraints

The Pandora's Box problem models the search for the best alternative when evaluation is costly. In the simplest variant, a decision maker is presented with $n$ boxes, each associated with a cost of inspection and a hidden random reward. The decision maker inspects a subset of these boxes one after the other, in a possibly adaptive order, and gains the difference between the largest revealed reward and the sum of the inspection costs. Although this classic version is well understood (Weitzman 1979), there is a flourishing recent literature on variants of the problem. Here we introduce a general framework -- the Pandora's Box Over Time problem -- that captures a wide range of variants where time plays a role, e.g., by constraining the schedules of exploration and influencing costs and rewards. In our framework, boxes have time-dependent rewards and costs, whereas inspection may require a box-specific processing time. Moreover, once a box is inspected, its reward may deteriorate over time. Our main result is an efficient constant-factor approximation to the optimal strategy for the Pandora's Box Over Time problem, which is generally NP-hard to compute. We further obtain improved results for the natural special cases where boxes have no processing time, boxes are available only in specific time slots, or when costs and reward distributions are time-independent (but rewards may still deteriorate after inspection).

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Multi-Agent Combinatorial Contracts

Combinatorial contracts are emerging as a key paradigm in algorithmic contract design, paralleling the role of combinatorial auctions in algorithmic mechanism design. In this paper we study natural combinatorial contract settings involving teams of agents, each capable of performing multiple actions. This scenario extends two fundamental special cases previously examined in the literature, namely the single-agent combinatorial action model of [Duetting et al., 2021] and the multi-agent binary-action model of [Babaioff et al., 2012, Duetting et al., 2023]. We study the algorithmic and computational aspects of these settings, highlighting the unique challenges posed by the absence of certain monotonicity properties essential for analyzing the previous special cases. To navigate these complexities, we introduce a broad set of novel tools that deepen our understanding of combinatorial contracts environments and yield good approximation guarantees. Our main result is a constant-factor approximation for submodular multi-agent multi-action problems with value and demand oracles access. This result is tight: we show that this problem admits no PTAS (even under binary actions). As a side product of our main result, we devise an FPTAS, with value and demand oracles, for single-agent combinatorial action scenarios with general reward functions, which is of independent interest. We also provide bounds on the gap between the optimal welfare and the principal's utility. We show that, for subadditive rewards, perhaps surprisingly, this gap scales only logarithmically (rather than linearly) in the size of the action space.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

Contract Design for Sequential Actions

We introduce a novel model of contracts with combinatorial actions that accounts for sequential and adaptive agent behavior. As in the standard model, a principal delegates the execution of a costly project to an agent. There are $n$ actions, each one incurring a cost to the agent and inducing a probability distribution over $m$ outcomes; each outcome generates some reward for the principal. The principal incentivizes the agent through a contract that specifies a payment for each potential outcome. Unlike the standard model, the agent chooses actions sequentially. Following each action, the agent observes the realized outcome, and decides whether to stop or continue with another action. Upon halting, the agent chooses one of the realized outcomes, which determines both his payment and the principal's reward. This model captures common scenarios where the agent can make multiple attempts in the course of executing a project. We study the optimal contract problem in this new setting, namely the contract that maximizes the principal's utility. We first observe that the agent's problem - (adaptively) finding the sequence of actions that maximizes his utility for a given contract - is equivalent to the well-known Pandora's Box problem. Using this insight, we provide algorithms and hardness results for the optimal contract problem, under both independent and correlated actions, and for both linear and general contracts. For independent actions, we provide a poly-time algorithm for the optimal linear contract, and establish that finding the optimal general contract is NP-hard. In cases where the number of outcomes is constant, we devise a poly-time algorithm even for the optimal general contract. For correlated actions, we find that, for both linear and general contracts, approximating the optimal contract within any constant ratio is NP-hard.

cs.GT↗