2025-04-03 | | Total: 6
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. We study multi-agent contracts with budget constraints under both binary and combinatorial actions. For binary actions, our contribution is threefold. First, we generalize all previously known approximation guarantees on the principal's revenue to budgeted settings. Second, through the lens of budget constraints, we uncover insightful connections between the standard objective of the principal's revenue and other objectives. We identify a broad class of objectives, which we term BEST objectives, including reward, social welfare, and revenue, 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. For combinatorial actions, we establish a strong negative result. Specifically, we show that in a budgeted setting with submodular rewards, no finite approximation is possible to any BEST objective. This stands in contrast to the unbudgeted setting with submodular rewards, where a polynomial-time constant-factor approximation is known for revenue. On the positive side, for gross substitutes rewards, we recover our binary-actions results, obtaining a constant-factor approximation for all BEST objectives.
Traditional approaches to modeling and predicting traffic behavior often rely on Wardrop Equilibrium (WE), assuming non-atomic traffic demand and neglecting correlations in individual decisions. However, the growing role of real-time human feedback and adaptive recommendation systems calls for more expressive equilibrium concepts that better capture user preferences and the stochastic nature of routing behavior. In this paper, we introduce a preference-centric route recommendation framework grounded in the concept of Borda Coarse Correlated Equilibrium (BCCE), wherein users have no incentive to deviate from recommended strategies when evaluated by Borda scores-pairwise comparisons encoding user preferences. We develop an adaptive algorithm that learns from dueling feedback and show that it achieves O(T23) regret, implying convergence to the BCCE under mild assumptions. We conduct empirical evaluations using a case study to illustrate and justify our theoretical analysis. The results demonstrate the efficacy and practical relevance of our approach.
As the number of decentralized applications and users on Ethereum grows, the ability of the blockchain to efficiently handle a growing number of transactions becomes increasingly strained. Ethereums current execution model relies heavily on sequential processing, meaning that operations are processed one after the other, which creates significant bottlenecks to future scalability demands. While scalability solutions for Ethereum exist, they inherit the limitations of the EVM, restricting the extent to which they can scale. This paper proposes a novel solution to enable maximally parallelizable executions within Ethereum, built out of three self-sufficient approaches. These approaches include strategies in which Ethereum transaction state accesses could be strategically and efficiently predetermined, and further propose how the incorporation of gas based incentivization mechanisms could enforce a maximally parallelizable network.
We study dynamic decentralized two-sided matching in which players may encounter unanticipated experiences. As they become aware of these experiences, they may change their preferences over players on the other side of the market. Consequently, they may get ``divorced'' and rematch again with other agents, which may lead to further unanticipated experiences etc. A matching is stable if there is absence of pairwise common belief in blocking. Stable matchings can be destabilized by unanticipated experiences. Yet, we show that there exist self-confirming outcomes that are stable and do not lead to further unanticipated experiences. We introduce a natural decentralized matching process that, at each period assigns probability 1−ε to the satisfaction of a mutual optimal blocking pair (if it exists) and picks any optimal blocking pair otherwise. The parameter ε is interpreted as a friction of the matching market. We show that for any decentralized matching process, frictions are necessary for convergence to stability even without unawareness. Our process converges to self-confirming stable outcomes. Further, we allow for bilateral communication/flirting that changes the awareness and say that a matching is flirt-proof stable if there is absence of communication leading to pairwise common belief in blocking. We show that our natural decentralized matching process converges to flirt-proof self-confirming outcomes.
In this paper, we expand the Bayesian persuasion framework to account for unobserved confounding variables in sender-receiver interactions. While traditional models assume that belief updates follow Bayesian principles, real-world scenarios often involve hidden variables that impact the receiver's belief formation and decision-making. We conceptualize this as a sequential decision-making problem, where the sender and receiver interact over multiple rounds. In each round, the sender communicates with the receiver, who also interacts with the environment. Crucially, the receiver's belief update is affected by an unobserved confounding variable. By reformulating this scenario as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP), we capture the sender's incomplete information regarding both the dynamics of the receiver's beliefs and the unobserved confounder. We prove that finding an optimal observation-based policy in this POMDP is equivalent to solving for an optimal signaling strategy in the original persuasion framework. Furthermore, we demonstrate how this reformulation facilitates the application of proximal learning for off-policy evaluation in the persuasion process. This advancement enables the sender to evaluate alternative signaling strategies using only observational data from a behavioral policy, thus eliminating the necessity for costly new experiments.
Dynamic resource allocation in multi-agent settings often requires balancing efficiency with fairness over time--a challenge inadequately addressed by conventional, myopic fairness measures. Motivated by behavioral insights that human judgments of fairness evolve with temporal distance, we introduce a novel framework for temporal fairness that incorporates past-discounting mechanisms. By applying a tunable discount factor to historical utilities, our approach interpolates between instantaneous and perfect-recall fairness, thereby capturing both immediate outcomes and long-term equity considerations. Beyond aligning more closely with human perceptions of fairness, this past-discounting method ensures that the augmented state space remains bounded, significantly improving computational tractability in sequential decision-making settings. We detail the formulation of discounted-recall fairness in both additive and averaged utility contexts, illustrate its benefits through practical examples, and discuss its implications for designing balanced, scalable resource allocation strategies.