Computing Optimal Contracts in Series-Parallel Heterogeneous Combinatorial Agencies

We study an economic setting in which a principal motivates a team of strategic agents to exert costly effort toward the success of a joint project. The action taken by each agent is hidden and affects the (binary) outcome of the agent's individual task in a stochastic manner. A Boolean function, called technology, maps the individual tasks' outcomes to the outcome of the whole project. The principal induces a Nash equilibrium on the agents' actions through payments that are conditioned on the project's outcome (rather than the agents' actual actions) and the main challenge is that of determining the Nash equilibrium that maximizes the principal's net utility, referred to as the optimal contract. Babaioff, Feldman and Nisan suggest and study a basic combinatorial agency model for this setting, and provide a full analysis of the AND technology. Here, we concentrate mainly on OR technologies and on series-parallel (SP) technologies, which are constructed inductively from their building blocks -- the AND and OR technologies. We provide a complete analysis of the computational complexity of the optimal contract problem in OR technologies, which resolves an open question and disproves a conjecture raised by Babaioff et al. In particular, we show that while the AND case admits a polynomial time algorithm, computing the optimal contract in an OR technology is NP-hard. On the positive side, we devise an FPTAS for the OR case and establish a scheme that given any SP technology, provides a (1 + ?) -approximation for all but an $\hat{\epsilon}$-fraction of the relevant instances (for which a failure message is output) in time polynomial in the size of the technology and in the reciprocals of ? and $\hat{\epsilon}$.

[1]  David S. Johnson,et al.  Computers and Intractability: A Guide to the Theory of NP-Completeness , 1978 .

[2]  Bengt Holmstrom,et al.  Moral Hazard in Teams , 1982 .

[3]  J. Scott Provan,et al.  The Complexity of Counting Cuts and of Computing the Probability that a Graph is Connected , 1983, SIAM J. Comput..

[4]  Dilip Mookherjee Optimal Incentive Schemes with Many Agents , 1984 .

[5]  E. Rasmusen Moral Hazard in Risk-Averse Teams , 1987 .

[6]  Steven A. Matthews,et al.  Efficient and Nearly-Efficient Partnerships , 1993 .

[7]  Roland Strausz Moral Hazard in Sequential Teams , 1997 .

[8]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Algorithmic mechanism design (extended abstract) , 1999, STOC '99.

[9]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Algorithms for Selfish Agents , 1999, STACS.

[10]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Algorithms for selfish agents mechanism design for distributed computation , 1999 .

[11]  Christos H. Papadimitriou,et al.  Algorithms, Games, and the Internet , 2001, ICALP.

[12]  Noam Nisan,et al.  Algorithmic Mechanism Design , 2001, Games Econ. Behav..

[13]  Joan Feigenbaum,et al.  Distributed algorithmic mechanism design: recent results and future directions , 2002, DIALM '02.

[14]  Eyal Winter Incentives and Discrimination , 2004 .

[15]  Scott Shenker,et al.  Hidden-action in multi-hop routing , 2005, EC '05.

[16]  Moshe Babaioff,et al.  Combinatorial agency , 2006, EC '06.

[17]  Moshe Babaioff,et al.  Mixed Strategies in Combinatorial Agency , 2006, WINE.

[18]  Fan Chung Graham,et al.  Internet and Network Economics, Third International Workshop, WINE 2007, San Diego, CA, USA, December 12-14, 2007, Proceedings , 2007, WINE.

[19]  Tim Roughgarden,et al.  Algorithmic Game Theory , 2007 .