mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

The Pseudo-Dimension of Contracts

arXiv 2501.14474 ↗First posted 24 Jan 2025cs.GT cs.AI cs.LGcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jan 2025.

Builds on

23 of 44 references.

References · 23

  1. 2015The Sample Complexity of Revenue Maximizationcited by 48
  2. 2014Adaptive Contract Design for Crowdsourcing Markets: Bandit Algorithms for Repeated Principal-Agent Problemscited by 46
  3. 2022The Sample Complexity of Online Contract Designcited by 35
  4. 2018Simple versus Optimal Contractscited by 33
  5. 2016Sample Complexity of Automated Mechanism Designcited by 24
  6. 2020Contracts under Moral Hazard and Adverse Selectioncited by 21
  7. 2024Incentivized Learning in Principal-Agent Bandit Gamescited by 13
  8. 2021Bayesian Agency: Linear versus Tractable Contractscited by 12
  9. 2021Combinatorial Contractscited by 12
  10. 2022Designing Menus of Contracts Efficiently: The Power of Randomizationcited by 10
  11. 2024Algorithmic Contract Theory: A Surveycited by 8
  12. 2024Automated Design of Affine Maximizer Mechanisms in Dynamic Settingscited by 7
11 more
  1. 2023Multi-Agent Contract Design: How to Commission Multiple Agents with Individual Outcomecited by 6
  2. 2015The Pseudo-Dimension of Near-Optimal Auctionscited by 5
  3. 2023The Power of Menus in Contract Designcited by 5
  4. 2023On Supermodular Contracts and Dense Subgraphscited by 5
  5. 2024Are Bounded Contracts Learnable and Approximately Optimal?cited by 5
  6. 2023Machine Learning-Powered Combinatorial Clock Auctioncited by 4
  7. 2023On the (In)approximability of Combinatorial Contractscited by 4
  8. 2024Multi-Agent Contract Design beyond Binary Actionscited by 3
  9. 2023Combinatorial Contracts Beyond Gross Substitutescited by 2
  10. 2024A Reduction from Multi-Parameter to Single-Parameter Bayesian Contract Designcited by 2
  11. 2024Prices, Bids, Values: One ML-Powered Combinatorial Auction to Rule Them Allcited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.