arXiv subjects

Yoav Gal-Tzur

Publications and source records attributed to Yoav Gal-Tzur.

6 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 $α_i$, 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 $Ω((\log n)/(\log \log n)^2)$-competitive. Second, for the broader class of XOS (a.k.a., fractionally subadditive) rewards, any online policy is $Ω((\log \log n)/(\log \log \log n))$-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

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 $Θ(\log n/ \log \log n)$, 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↗

arXiv2026

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 $Θ(m/e)$ total copies, and this bound is tight even for XOS valuations. We further show that it is unavoidable to duplicate some goods $Ω(\ln m / \ln \ln m)$ 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

When Contracts Get Complex: Information-Theoretic Barriers

In the combinatorial-action contract model (Dütting et al., FOCS'21) a principal delegates the execution of a complex project to an agent, who can choose any subset from a given set of actions. Each set of actions incurs a cost to the agent, given by a set function $c$, and induces an expected reward to the principal, given by a set function $f$. To incentivize the agent, the principal designs a contract that specifies the payment upon success, with the optimal contract being the one that maximizes the principal's utility. It is known that with access to value queries no constant-approximation is possible for submodular $f$ and additive $c$. A fundamental open problem is: does the problem become tractable with demand queries? We answer this question to the negative, by establishing that finding an optimal contract for submodular $f$ and additive $c$ requires exponentially many demand queries. We leverage the robustness of our techniques to extend and strengthen this result to different combinations of submodular/supermodular $f$ and $c$; while allowing the principal to access $f$ and $c$ using arbitrary communication protocols. Our results are driven by novel equal-revenue constructions when one of the functions is additive, immediately implying value query hardness. We then identify a new property -- sparse demand -- which allows us to strengthen these results to demand query hardness. Finally, by augmenting a perturbed version of these constructions with one additional action, thereby making both functions combinatorial, we establish exponential communication complexity.

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

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↗