Bayesian Agency: Linear versus Tractable Contracts
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
We study principal-agent problems in which a principal commits to an outcome-dependent payment scheme (a.k.a. contract) so as to induce an agent to take a costly, unobservable action. We relax the assumption that the principal perfectly knows the agent by considering a Bayesian setting where the agent's type is unknown and randomly selected according to a given probability distribution, which is known to the principal. Each agent's type is characterized by her own action costs and action-outcome distributions. In the literature on non-Bayesian principal-agent problems, considerable attention has been devoted to linear contracts, which are simple, pure-commission payment schemes that still provide nice approximation guarantees with respect to principal-optimal (possibly non-linear) contracts. While in non-Bayesian settings an optimal contract can be computed efficiently, this is no longer the case for our Bayesian principal-agent problems. This further motivates our focus on linear contracts, which can be optimized efficiently given their single-parameter nature. Our goal is to analyze the properties of linear contracts in Bayesian settings, in terms of approximation guarantees with respect to optimal contracts and general tractable contracts (i.e., efficiently-computable ones). First, we study the approximation guarantees of linear contracts with respect to optimal ones, showing that the former suffer from a multiplicative loss linear in the number of agent's types. Nevertheless, we prove that linear contracts can still provide a constant multiplicative approximation ρ of the optimal principal's expected utility, though at the expense of an exponentially-small additive loss 2-Omega(ρ). Then, we switch to tractable contracts, showing that, surprisingly, linear contracts perform well among them.
Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 1 Jun 2021.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 5; 2024: 3; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
12 papers.
- 2022The Sample Complexity of Online Contract Designcited by 35
- 2024Contracting with a Learning Agentcited by 22
- 2022Principal-Agent Hypothesis Testingcited by 13
- 2023Deep Contract Design via Discontinuous Networkscited by 10
- 2023Online Learning in a Creator Economycited by 8
- 2023Learning to Incentivize Information Acquisition: Proper Scoring Rules Meet Principal-Agent Modelcited by 7
- 2024Are Bounded Contracts Learnable and Approximately Optimal?cited by 5
- 2023Learning Optimal Contracts: How to Exploit Small Action Spacescited by 4
- 2024Repeated Contracting with Multiple Non-Myopic Agents: Policy Regret and Limited Liabilitycited by 4
- 2025The Pseudo-Dimension of Contractscited by 3
- 2023Optimal Pricing for Data-Augmented AutoML Marketplacescited by 0
- 2026The Optimal Sample Complexity of Linear Contractscited by 0
- 2026The Optimal Sample Complexity of Linear Contracts4 Jan 2026
- 2025The Pseudo-Dimension of Contracts24 Jan 2025
- 2024Repeated Contracting with Multiple Non-Myopic Agents: Policy Regret and Limited Liability27 Feb 2024
- 2024Are Bounded Contracts Learnable and Approximately Optimal?22 Feb 2024
- 2024Contracting with a Learning Agent29 Jan 2024
- 2023Optimal Pricing for Data-Augmented AutoML Marketplaces27 Oct 2023
- 2023Learning Optimal Contracts: How to Exploit Small Action Spaces18 Sep 2023
- 2023Deep Contract Design via Discontinuous Networks5 Jul 2023
- 2023Online Learning in a Creator Economy19 May 2023
- 2023Learning to Incentivize Information Acquisition: Proper Scoring Rules Meet Principal-Agent Model15 Mar 2023
- 2022The Sample Complexity of Online Contract Design10 Nov 2022
- 2022Principal-Agent Hypothesis Testing13 May 2022