Michal Feldman

Elizabeth Baldwin, Paul Duetting, Michal Feldman et al.

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.

Michal Feldman, Liat Yashin

We study the optimal contract problem in the \emph{combinatorial actions} framework of Dütting 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.

Paul Duetting, Michal Feldman, Tomasz Ponitka et al.

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.

Michal Feldman, Amos Fiat, Iddan Golomb

We study mechanisms for candidate selection that seek to minimize the social cost, where voters and candidates are associated with points in some underlying metric space. The social cost of a candidate is the sum of its distances to each voter. Some of our work assumes that these points can be modeled on a real line, but other results of ours are more general. A question closely related to candidate selection is that of minimizing the sum of distances for facility location. The difference is that in our setting there is a fixed set of candidates, whereas the large body of work on facility location seems to consider every point in the metric space to be a possible candidate. This gives rise to three types of mechanisms which differ in the granularity of their input space (voting, ranking and location mechanisms). We study the relationships between these three classes of mechanisms. While it may seem that Black's 1948 median algorithm is optimal for candidate selection on the line, this is not the case. We give matching upper and lower bounds for a variety of settings. In particular, when candidates and voters are on the line, our universally truthful spike mechanism gives a [tight] approximation of two. When assessing candidate selection mechanisms, we seek several desirable properties: (a) efficiency (minimizing the social cost) (b) truthfulness (dominant strategy incentive compatibility) and (c) simplicity (a smaller input space). We quantify the effect that truthfulness and simplicity impose on the efficiency.

Yoram Bachrach, Reshef Meir, Michal Feldman et al.

Cooperative games model the allocation of profit from joint actions, following considerations such as stability and fairness. We propose the reliability extension of such games, where agents may fail to participate in the game. In the reliability extension, each agent only "survives" with a certain probability, and a coalition's value is the probability that its surviving members would be a winning coalition in the base game. We study prominent solution concepts in such games, showing how to approximate the Shapley value and how to compute the core in games with few agent types. We also show that applying the reliability extension may stabilize the game, making the core non-empty even when the base game has an empty core.