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.

We study a variant of the single-choice prophet inequality problem where the decision-maker does not know the underlying distributions and has only access to a set of samples from the distributions. Rubinstein et al. [16] showed that the optimal competitive ratio of \(\frac12\) can surprisingly be obtained by observing a set of \(n\) samples, one from each of the distributions. In this paper, we prove that this competitive ratio of \(\frac12\) becomes unattainable when the decision-maker is provided with a set of more samples (for sufficiently many samples). We then examine the natural class of ordinal static threshold algorithms, where the algorithm selects the \(i\)-th highest ranked sample, sets this sample as a static threshold, and then chooses the first value that exceeds this threshold. We show that the best possible algorithm within this class achieves a competitive ratio of \(0.433-o(1)\) (where the \(o(1)\) is an expression that decreases as the number of samples increases), for which we provide a matching upper bound of \(0.433\). Along the way, we utilize the tools developed in the paper and provide an alternative proof of the main result of Rubinstein et al. [16].

We introduce a novel model of contracts with combinatorial actions that captures sequential and adaptive agent behavior. As in the standard setting, a principal delegates a costly project to an agent and incentivizes them via a contract specifying payments for each possible outcome. The novelty of our model lies in allowing the agent to select actions sequentially — after each action, they observe the outcome and decide whether to stop or continue. This framework captures common scenarios in which agents can make multiple attempts to achieve a desired outcome.

We study a natural combinatorial single-principal multi-agent contract design problem, in which a principal motivates a team of agents to exert effort toward a given task. At the heart of our model is a reward function , which maps the agent efforts to an expected reward of the principal. We seek to design computationally efficient algorithms for finding optimal (or near-optimal) linear contracts for reward functions that belong to the complement-free hierarchy. Our first main result gives constant-factor approximation algorithms for submodular and XOS reward functions, with value oracles for submodular reward functions and value and demand oracles for XOS reward functions. It relies on an unconventional use of “prices” and (approximate) demand queries for selecting the set of agents that the principal should contract with, and exploits a novel scaling property of XOS functions and their marginals, which may be of independent interest. As our second main result, we show that constant approximation is the best we can get for submodular reward functions, even with both value and demand oracles. For the larger class of subadditive reward functions, we establish an \(\Omega (\sqrt {n})\) impossibility for settings with n agents. A striking feature of this impossibility is that it applies to subadditive functions that are constant-factor close to submodular. This rapid degradation presents a surprising departure from previous literature, e.g., on combinatorial auctions, where approximation guarantees tend to deteriorate more gracefully.

Abstract. We introduce a new measure for the performance of online algorithms in Bayesian settings, where the input is drawn from a known prior, but the realizations are revealed one-by-one in an online fashion. Our new measure is called an order-competitive ratio. It is defined as the worst case (over all distribution sequences) ratio between the performance of the best order-unaware and order-aware algorithms, and quantifies the loss that is incurred due to lack of knowledge of the arrival order. Despite the growing interest in the role of the arrival order on the performance of online algorithms, this loss has been overlooked thus far. We study the order-competitive ratio in the paradigmatic prophet inequality problem, for the two common objective functions of (i) maximizing the expected value, and (ii) maximizing the probability of obtaining the largest value; and with respect to two families of algorithms, namely, (i) adaptive algorithms, and (ii) single-threshold algorithms. We provide tight bounds for all four combinations, with respect to deterministic algorithms, and preliminary results for randomized algorithms. Our analysis requires new ideas and departs from standard techniques. In particular, our adaptive algorithms inevitably go beyond single-threshold algorithms. In contrast to the classic competitive ratio measure, where the optimal performance is obtained by deterministic single-threshold algorithms, our results for order-competitive ratio capture the intuition that adaptive algorithms may be more powerful than single-threshold ones, and randomized algorithms outperform deterministic ones.

We study a new class of contract design problems where a principal delegates the execution of multiple projects to a set of agents. The principal's expected reward from each project is a combinatorial function of the agents working on it. Each agent has limited capacity and can work on at most one project, and the agents are heterogeneous, with different costs and contributions for participating in different projects. The main challenge of the principal is to decide how to allocate the agents to projects when the number of projects grows in scale.

We initiate the study of the prophet inequality problem through the resource augmentation framework in scenarios when the values of the rewards are correlated. Our goal is to determine the number of additional rewards an online algorithm requires to approximate the maximum value of the original instance. While the independent reward case is well understood, we extend this research to account for correlations among rewards. Our results demonstrate that, unlike in the independent case, the required number of additional rewards for approximation depends on the number of original rewards, and that block-threshold algorithms, which are optimal in the independent case, may require an infinite number of additional rewards when correlations are present. We develop asymptotically optimal algorithms for the following three scenarios: (1) where rewards arrive in blocks corresponding to the different copies of the original instance; (2) where rewards across all copies are arbitrarily shuffled; and (3) where rewards arrive in blocks corresponding to the different copies of the original instance, and values within each block are pairwise independent rather than fully correlated.

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: the single-agent combinatorial action model of [18], and the multi-agent binary- action model of [4, 19].

Abstract. We introduce a new model of combinatorial contracts in which a principal delegates the execution of a costly task to an agent. To complete the task, the agent can take any subset of a given set of unobservable actions, each of which has an associated cost. The cost of a set of actions is the sum of the costs of the individual actions, and the principal’s reward as a function of the chosen actions satisfies some form of diminishing returns. The principal incentivizes the agents through a contract based on the observed outcome. Our main results are for the case where the task delegated to the agent is a project, which can be successful or not. We show that if the success probability as a function of the set of actions is gross substitutes, then an optimal contract can be computed with polynomially many value queries, whereas if it is submodular, the optimal contract is NP-hard. All our results extend to linear contracts for higher-dimensional outcome spaces, which we show to be robustly optimal given first moment constraints. Our analysis uncovers a new property of gross substitutes functions and reveals many interesting connections between combinatorial contracts and combinatorial auctions, where gross substitutes is known to be the frontier for efficient computation.

Pandora’s problem is a fundamental model that studies optimal search under costly inspection. In the classic version, there are n boxes, each associated with a known cost and a known distribution over values. A strategy inspects the boxes sequentially and obtains a utility that equals the difference between the maximum value of an inspected box and the total inspection cost. Weitzman (1979) presented a surprisingly simple strategy that obtains the optimal expected utility. In this work we introduce a new variant of Pandora’s problem in which every box is also associated with a publicly known deadline, indicating the final round by which its value may be chosen. This model captures many real-life scenarios where alternatives admit deadlines, such as candidate interviews and college admissions. Our main result is an efficient threshold-based strategy that achieves a constant approximation relative to the performance of the optimal strategy for the deadlines setting.

Clairvoyant network design with deadlines or delay has been studied extensively, culminating in an O(log n)-competitive general framework, where n is the number of possible request types (Azar and Touitou, FOCS 2020). In the nonclairvoyant setting, the problem becomes much harder, as Ω(√n) lower bounds are known for certain problems (Azar et al., STOC 2017). However, no frameworks are known for the nonclairvoyant setting, and previous work focuses only on specific problems, e.g., multilevel aggregation (Le et al., SODA 2023). In this paper, we present the first nonclairvoyant frameworks for network design with deadlines or delay. These frameworks are nearly optimal: their competitive ratio is Õ(√n), which matches known lower bounds up to logarithmic factors.

We study two combinatorial contract design models -- multi-agent and multi-action -- where a principal delegates the execution of a costly project to others. In both settings, the principal cannot observe the choices of the agent(s), only the project's outcome (success or failure), and incentivizes the agent(s) using a contract, which is a payment scheme that specifies the payment to the agent(s) upon a project's success. In the multi-agent setting, the project is delegated to a team of agents, and every agent chooses whether or not to exert effort. A success probability function specifies the probability of success for every subset of agents exerting effort. For the family of submodular success probability functions, Duetting et al. [2023] established a poly-time constant-factor approximation to the optimal contract, and left open whether this problem admits a PTAS. We show that no poly-time algorithm guarantees a better than $0.7$-approximation to the optimal contract. For XOS functions, Duetting et al. [2023] give a poly-time constant approximation with value and demand queries. We show that with value queries only, one cannot get any constant approximation. In the multi-action setting, the project is delegated to a single agent, who can take any subset of a given set of actions. Here, a success probability function specifies the probability of success for any subset of actions. Duetting et al. [2021a] devised a poly-time algorithm for computing an optimal contract for gross substitutes success probability functions, and established NP-hardness with respect to submodular functions. We further strengthen this hardness result by showing that this problem does not admit any constant approximation either. For the broader class of XOS functions, we establish the hardness of obtaining a $n^{-1/2+\varepsilon}$-approximation for any $\varepsilon > 0$.

We study the classic single-choice prophet inequality problem through a resource augmentation lens. Our goal is to bound the (1 - ε)-competition complexity of different types of online algorithms. This metric asks for the smallest k such that the expected value of the online algorithm on k copies of the original instance, is at least a (1 - ε)-approximation to the expected offline optimum on a single copy.

In Bayesian online settings, every element is associated with a value drawn from a known underlying distribution. This distribution, representing the population from which the element is drawn, is referred to as the element's identity. The elements arrive sequentially, with their values being revealed in an online manner. Most previous work has assumed that, upon the arrival of a new element, the online algorithm observes its value and its identity. However, practical scenarios frequently require algorithms to make decisions based solely on the element's value, disregarding its identity. This necessity emerges either from the algorithm's lack of knowledge about the element's identity or in the pursuit of fairness, aiming for bias-free decisions across varying identities. We call such algorithms identity-blind algorithms, and propose the identity-blindness gap as a metric to evaluate the performance loss in online algorithms caused by identity-blindness. This gap is defined as the maximum ratio between the expected performance of an identity-blind online algorithm and an optimal online algorithm that knows the arrival order, thus also the identities.

Pandora's problem is a fundamental model in economics that studies optimal search strategies under costly inspection. In this paper we initiate the study of Pandora's problem with combinatorial costs, capturing many real-life scenarios where search cost is non-additive. Weitzman's celebrated algorithm [1979] establishes the remarkable result that, for additive costs, the optimal search strategy is non-adaptive and computationally feasible.

We introduce a new measure for the performance of online algorithms in Bayesian settings, where the input is drawn from a known prior, but the realizations are revealed one-by-one in an online fashion. Our new measure is called order-competitive ratio. It is defined as the worst case (over all distribution sequences) ratio between the performance of the best order-unaware and order-aware algorithms, and quantifies the loss that is incurred due to lack of knowledge of the arrival order. Despite the growing interest in the role of the arrival order on the performance of online algorithms, this loss has been overlooked thus far. We study the order-competitive ratio in the paradigmatic prophet inequality problem, for the two common objective functions of (i) maximizing the expected value, and (ii) maximizing the probability of obtaining the largest value; and with respect to two families of algorithms, namely (i) adaptive algorithms, and (ii) single-threshold algorithms. We provide tight bounds for all four combinations, with respect to deterministic algorithms. Our analysis requires new ideas and departs from standard techniques. In particular, our adaptive algorithms inevitably go beyond single-threshold algorithms. The results with respect to the order-competitive ratio measure capture the intuition that adaptive algorithms are stronger than single-threshold ones, and may lead to a better algorithmic advice than the classical competitive ratio measure. * This work is supported by Science and Technology Innovation 2030 –“New Generation of Artificial Intelligence” Major Project No.(2018AAA0100903), Innovation Program of Shanghai Municipal Education Commission, Program for Innovative Research Team of Shanghai University of Finance and Economics (IRTSHUFE) and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreement No. 866132), by the Israel Science Foundation (grant number 317/17), by an Amazon Research Award, and by the NSF-BSF (grant number 2020788). Tomer Ezra was partially supported by the ERC Advanced Grant 788893 AMDROMA “Algorithmic and Mechanism Design Research in Online Markets” and MIUR PRIN project ALGADIMAR “Algorithms, Games, and Digital Markets”. Zhihao Gavin Tang is supported by NSFC grant 61902233. Nick Gravin is supported by NSFC grant 62150610500.

We study a natural combinatorial single-principal multi-agent contract design problem, in which a principal motivates a team of agents to exert effort toward a given task. At the heart of our model is a reward function, which maps the agent efforts to an expected reward of the principal. We seek to design computationally efficient algorithms for finding optimal (or near-optimal) linear contracts for reward functions that belong to the complement-free hierarchy.

Online algorithms for secretary matching in bipartite weighted graphs have been studied extensively in recent years. We generalize this study to secretary matching in general weighted graphs, for both vertex and edge arrival models.

We consider the problem of allocating a set on indivisible items to players with private preferences in an efficient and fair way. We focus on valuations that have dichotomous marginals, in which the added value of any item to a set is either 0 or 1, and aim to design truthful allocation mechanisms (without money) that maximize welfare and are fair. For the case that players have submodular valuations with dichotomous marginals, we design such a deterministic truthful allocation mechanism. The allocation output by our mechanism is Lorenz dominating, and consequently satisfies many desired fairness properties, such as being envy-free up to any item (EFX), and maximizing the Nash Social Welfare (NSW). We then show that our mechanism with random priorities is envy-free ex-ante, while having all the above properties ex-post. Furthermore, we present several impossibility results precluding similar results for the larger class of XOS valuations.

We introduce a new model of combinatorial contracts in which a principal delegates the execution of a costly task to an agent. To complete the task, the agent can take any subset of a given set of unobservable actions, each of which has an associated cost. The cost of a set of actions is the sum of the costs of the individual actions, and the principal's reward as a function of the chosen actions satisfies some form of diminishing returns. The principal incentivizes the agents through a contract, based on the observed outcome. Our main results are for the case where the task delegated to the agent is a project, which can be successful or not. We show that if the success probability as a function of the set of actions is gross substitutes, then an optimal contract can be computed with polynomially many value queries, whereas if it is submodular, the optimal contract is NP-hard. All our results extend to linear contracts for higher-dimensional outcome spaces, which we show to be robustly optimal given first moment constraints. Our analysis uncovers a new property of gross substitutes functions, and reveals many interesting connections between combinatorial contracts and combinatorial auctions, where gross substitutes is known to be the frontier for efficient computation.

We study the secretary problem in multi-agent environments. In the standard secretary problem, a sequence of arbitrary awards arrive online, in a random order, and a single decision maker makes an immediate and irrevocable decision whether to accept each award upon its arrival. The requirement to make immediate decisions arises in many cases due to an implicit assumption regarding competition. Namely, if the decision maker does not take the offered award immediately, it will be taken by someone else. We introduce a novel multi-agent secretary model, in which the competition is explicit. In our model, multiple agents compete over the arriving awards, but the decisions need not be immediate; instead, agents may select previous awards as long as they are available (i.e., not taken by another agent). If an award is selected by multiple agents, ties are broken either randomly or according to a global ranking. This induces a multi-agent game in which the time of selection is not enforced by the rules of the games, rather it is an important component of the agent's strategy. We study the structure and performance of equilibria in this game. For random tie breaking, we characterize the equilibria of the game, and show that the expected social welfare in equilibrium is nearly optimal, despite competition among the agents. For ranked tie breaking, we give a full characterization of equilibria in the 3-agent game, and show that as the number of agents grows, the winning probability of every agent under non-immediate selections approaches her winning probability under immediate selections.

We consider the problem of fair allocation of indivisible goods to n agents, with no transfers. When agents have equal entitlements, the well established notion of the maximin share (MMS) serves as an attractive fairness criterion, where to qualify as fair, an allocation needs to give every agent at least a substantial fraction of her MMS. In this paper we consider the case of arbitrary (unequal) entitlements. We explain shortcomings in previous attempts that extend the MMS to unequal entitlements. Our conceptual contribution is the introduction of a new notion of a share, the AnyPrice share (APS), that is appropriate for settings with arbitrary entitlements. The AnyPrice share of an agent is the value she can guarantee to herself if she is given a budget equal to her entitlement, and she buys her highest value affordable set when items are adversarially priced with a total price equal to the total entitlements. Even for the equal entitlements case, this notion is new, and satisfies APS ≥ MMS, where the inequality is sometimes strict. We also present an alternative definition for the APS as a maximization problem (a fractional version of the MMS), and provide comparisons between the APS and previous notions of fairness. Our main result concerns additive valuations and arbitrary entitlements, for which we provide a polynomial-time algorithm that gives every agent at least a 3/5-fraction of her APS. This algorithm can also be viewed as providing a strategy in a certain natural bidding game, and this strategy secures each agent that uses it at least a 3/5-fraction of her APS, regardless of the strategies used by other agents.

The endowment effect , coined by Nobel Laureate Richard Thaler, posits that people tend to inflate the value of items they own. Recently, Babaioff, Dobzinski and Oren [EC'18] introduced the notion of endowed valuations --- valuations that capture the endowment effect --- and studied the stability and efficiency of combinatorial markets with endowed valuations. They showed that under a specific formulation of the endowment effect, an endowed equilibrium --- market equilibrium with respect to endowed valuations --- is guaranteed to exist in markets with submodular valuations, but fails to exist under XOS valuations. We harness the endowment effect further by introducing a general framework that captures a wide range of different formulations of the endowment effect. The different formulations are (partially) ranked from weak to strong, based on a stability-preserving order. We then provide algorithms for computing endowment equilibria with high welfare for sufficiently strong endowment effects, and non-existence results for weaker ones. Among other results, we prove the existence of endowment equilibria under XOS valuations, and show that if one can pre-pack items into irrevocable bundles then an endowment equilibrium exists for arbitrary markets.

We provide prophet inequality algorithms for online weighted matching in general (non-bipartite) graphs, under two well-studied arrival models, namely edge arrival and vertex arrival. The weight of each edge is drawn independently from an a-priori known probability distribution. Under edge arrival, the weight of each edge is revealed upon arrival, and the algorithm decides whether to include it in the matching or not. Under vertex arrival, the weights of all edges from the newly arriving vertex to all previously arrived vertices are revealed, and the algorithm decides which of these edges, if any, to include in the matching. To study these settings, we introduce a novel unified framework of batched prophet inequalities that captures online settings where elements arrive in batches; in particular it captures matching under the two aforementioned arrival models. Our algorithms rely on the construction of suitable online contention resolution schemes (OCRS). We first extend the framework of OCRS to batched-OCRS, we then establish a reduction from batched prophet inequality to batched OCRS, and finally we construct batched OCRSs with selectable ratios of 0.337 and 0.5 for edge and vertex arrival models, respectively. Both results improve the state of the art for the corresponding settings. For vertex arrival, our result is tight. Interestingly, pricing-based prophet inequalities with comparable competitive ratios are unknown.

We study the communication complexity of welfare maximization in combinatorial auctions with m items and two players with subadditive valuations. We show that outperforming the trivial 1/2-approximation requires exponential communication, settling an open problem of Dobzinski, Nisan and Schapira [STOC’05, MOR’10] and Feige [STOC’06, SICOMP ’09]. To derive our results, we introduce a new class of subadditive functions that are “far from” fractionally subadditive (XOS) functions, and establish randomized communication lower bounds for a new “near-EQUALITY” problem, both of which may be of independent interest.

The prophet and secretary problems demonstrate online scenarios involving the optimal stopping theory. In a typical prophet or secretary problem, selection decisions are assumed to be immediate and irrevocable. However, many online settings accommodate some degree of revocability. To study such scenarios, we introduce the l-out-of- k setting, where the decision maker can select up to k elements immediately and irrevocably, but her performance is measured by the top l elements in the selected set. Equivalently, the decision makes can hold up to l elements at any given point in time, but can make up to k-l returns as new elements arrive. We give upper and lower bounds on the competitive ratio of l-out-of- k prophet and secretary scenarios. For l-out-of- k prophet scenarios we provide a single-sample algorithm with competitive ratio 1-l· e-Θ((k-l)2/k) . The algorithm is a single-threshold algorithm, which sets a threshold that equals the (l+k/2)th highest sample, and accepts all values exceeding this threshold, up to reaching capacity k . On the other hand, we show that this result is tight if the number of possible returns is linear in l (i.e., k-l =Θ(l)). In particular, we show that no single-sample algorithm obtains a competitive ratio better than 1 - 2-(2k+1)/k+1 . We also present a deterministic single-threshold algorithm for the 1-out-of- k prophet setting which obtains a competitive ratio of 1-3/2 · e-s/k 6, knowing only the distribution of the maximum value. This result improves the result of [Assaf & Samuel-Cahn, J. of App. Prob., 2000].