Contract Design Beyond Hidden-Actions
Tomer Ezra, Stefano Leonardi, Matteo Russo
Abstract
In the classical principal-agent hidden-action contract model, a principal delegates the execution of a costly task to an agent. In order to complete the task, the agent chooses an action from a set of actions, where each potential action is associated with a cost and a success probability to accomplish the task. To incentivize the agent to exert effort, the principal can commit to a contract, which is the amount of payment based on the task's success but not on the hidden-action chosen by the agent.
In this work, we study the contract design framework under binary outcomes where we relax the hidden-action assumption. We introduce new models where the principal is allowed to inspect subsets of actions at some cost that depends on the inspected subset. If the principal discovers that the agent did not select the agreed-upon action through the inspection, the principal can withhold payment. This relaxation of the model introduces a broader strategy space for the principal, who now faces a tradeoff between positive incentives (increasing payment) and negative incentives (increasing inspection).
We devise algorithms for finding the best deterministic and randomized incentive-compatible inspection schemes for various assumptions on the inspection cost function. In particular, we show the tractability of the case of submodular inspection cost functions. We complement our results by showing that it is impossible to efficiently find the optimal randomized inspection scheme for the more general case of XOS inspection cost functions, and that there is no PTAS for the case of subadditive inspection cost functions.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 1d5aae65-99f4-42b5-a270-fb45e016b8d9Cited by top-tier papers1
Ask how each one uses itBuilds on7
- The Complexity of ContractsPaul Dütting, Tim Roughgarden, Inbal Talgam-CohenSODA 2020 · 26 citations
- Improved Truthful Mechanisms for Subadditive Combinatorial Auctions: Breaking the Logarithmic BarrierSepehr Assadi, Thomas Kesselheim, Sahil SinglaSODA 2021 · 22 citations
- A Constant Factor Prophet Inequality for Online Combinatorial AuctionsJosé Correa, Andrés CristiSTOC 2023 · 18 citations
- Combinatorial ContractsPaul Dütting, Tomer Ezra, Michal Feldman, Thomas KesselheimFOCS 2021 · 18 citations
- Multi-agent ContractsPaul Dütting, Tomer Ezra, Michal Feldman, Thomas KesselheimSTOC 2023 · 12 citations
Related papers
- Contract Design Under Approximate Best ResponsesFrancesco Bacchiocchi, Jiarui Gan, Matteo Castiglioni, Alberto Marchesi et al.ICML 2025
- Learning Optimal Contracts: How to Exploit Small Action SpacesFrancesco Bacchiocchi, Matteo Castiglioni, Alberto Marchesi, Nicola GattiICLR 2024 · 21 citations
- Online Contract Design With Unknown TechnologyMatteo Bollini, Matteo Castiglioni, Alberto MarchesiICML 2026
- When Contracts Get Complex: Information-Theoretic BarriersPaul Dütting, Michal Feldman, Yoav Gal Tzur, Aviad RubinsteinSODA 2026
- Contract Design for Sequential ActionsTomer Ezra, Michal Feldman, Maya SchlesingerSODA 2026 · 9 citations
