arXiv subjects

Yingkai Li

Publications and source records attributed to Yingkai Li.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Transparency in Team Contracts

In contract design, the principal is often better informed about the project's chances of succeeding than the agents. To incentivize effort, the principal has two main tools: first, to design a contract, sharing part of the project's success among the agents; second, to design a (Bayesian) persuasion scheme, selectively sharing information with the agents. In this work we are interested in the optimal combination of both these tools. We tackle the joint problem through the prism of simplicity vs. optimality, and establish a stark dichotomy: The simple disclosure scheme of full transparency achieves a tight $4/3$-approximation to the optimal combination of information disclosure and team contract, when the team's production function is submodular. In contrast, full transparency can be arbitrarily far from optimal when production is supermodular. The techniques that we develop to bound the gap for submodular functions, also yield a new deterministic polynomial-time approximation algorithm for pure multi-agent contract design, with a significantly improved approximation ratio of $2.311$, and thus a $3.081$-approximation algorithm for the joint information and contracting problem.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Fair Team Contracts

A principal hires a team for a joint project and pays success-contingent shares to induce costly effort. We require that agents do not envy one another's contracts: for any pair of team members, neither would gain if they exchanged shares and all team members reoptimized their effort choices. For submodular rewards, revenue-optimal fair contracts can be chosen to pay each hired agent the maximum of her incentive threshold and a common endogenous share floor. We use this characterization to obtain an FPTAS for additive rewards and a deterministic value-oracle algorithm achieving a $0.249$ fraction of optimal fair revenue for submodular rewards. We also show that optimal fair contracts can outperform optimal non-discriminatory contracts by a factor of approximately $1.445$. This bound is tight for both additive and submodular rewards.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Selling to Non-linear Agents: A Demand-Based Auction

Auctions allocate scarce goods, from car licenses to online advertising, to buyers whose utilities are often not linear in money, as with budgets or risk aversion. We ask how a seller should sell to such buyers and what learning their preferences is worth. We propose demand-based auctions, which elicit demand curves and are dominant-strategy incentive compatible for any non-linear utilities. The revenue-maximizing one takes familiar second-price forms and is max-min optimal when the seller observes only demand curves. Under standard assumptions, learning risk attitudes beyond demand curves adds relatively little revenue, as does learning budgets unless they correlate with values.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Mechanism Design under Costly Signaling: the Value of Non-Coordination

We study allocation mechanisms that utilize costly signaling as a screening tool. A social planner aims to maximize social welfare, defined as the weighted sum of agents' utilities, while implementing a specific allocation rule. Within a broad class of agent preferences, we show that coordination mechanisms (where recommended signals depend on joint reports) are outperformed by non-coordination mechanisms (where signals depend solely on individual reports). When agents are also symmetric, such mechanisms are implementable through coarse-ranking contests.

econ.TH↗

arXiv2026

Scale-robust Auctions

We study auctions that are robust at any scale, i.e., they can be applied to sell both expensive and cheap items and achieve the best multiplicative approximation of the optimal revenue in the worst case. We first show that it is without loss of optimality to restrict attention to scale-invariant mechanisms whenever the family of possible distributions is closed under every positive rescaling. This conclusion uses no regularity or other distributional shape restriction. We then solve the two-agent, single-item problem with values drawn i.i.d. from an unknown regular distribution when only a high value bidder can receive a positive allocation. The robustly optimal mechanism in this class randomizes between the second-price auction, with probability approximately 0.806, and a markup auction that offers the item to the highest-valued bidder at a price equal to 2.447 times the second-highest value. Its worst-case approximation ratio is approximately 1.907.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Incentivizing Forecasters to Learn: Summarized vs. Unrestricted Advice

How should forecasters be incentivized to acquire the most information when learning takes place over time? We address this question in the context of a novel dynamic mechanism design problem in which a designer incentivizes an expert to learn by conditioning rewards on an event's outcome and the expert's reports. Eliciting summarized advice at a terminal date maximizes information acquisition if an informative signal either fully reveals the outcome or has predictable content. Otherwise, richer reporting capabilities may be required. Our findings shed light on incentive design for consultation and forecasting by illustrating how learning dynamics shape the qualitative properties of effort-maximizing contracts.

econ.TH↗

arXiv2026

Managing Persuasion Robustly: The Optimality of Quota Rules

We study a sender-receiver game in which the receiver can commit to a decision rule before the sender determines the information policy. We ask how the receiver should commit, in advance, to a rule that maps the information of the sender into decisions---when the receiver knows neither the sender's true preferences nor the full range of information the sender could supply. To handle this dual uncertainty, we adopt a unified robust framework that nests max-min utility, min-max regret, and min-max competitive ratio as special cases. Across all criteria, the same answer emerges: the optimal rule is always a quota rule.

econ.TH↗

arXiv2026

Strict Fairness at What Cost? Envy-Free Contracts with Subsidies

We study algorithmic fair contract design, where a principal designs task-level contracts and fairly delegates a set of tasks to a set of agents. Prior work reveals a fairness-revenue dilemma: exact envy-free (EF) contracts may have an unbounded price of fairness (PoF), while approximate notions avoid this unboundedness only by weakening strict fairness. To address this dilemma, we propose a novel scheme, called {\it Envy-free Contracts with Subsidies} (EFS), in which the principal may additionally offer agent-specific subsidies to restore strict fairness. Our main technical result is a tight characterization of the price of fairness for EFS contracts. In sharp contrast to EF contracts, whose PoF can be unbounded, we show that the PoF of EFS contracts is $n^{n+O(1)}$, where $n$ is the number of agents. Moreover, EFS contracts can outperform EF contracts by an arbitrarily large factor in terms of the principal's revenue. Finally, we present the complexity landscape: computing optimal EFS contracts is NP-hard in general, whereas a polynomial-time algorithm exists when the number of tasks is constant.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Algorithmic Fair Contracts

We initiate the algorithmic study of fair contract design. A principal assigns multiple tasks to heterogeneous agents and chooses task-level linear contracts; agents differ in costs and success probabilities, and fairness requires each agent to prefer her own task-contract bundle to any other agent's. Unlike envy-free allocations of indivisible items, envy-free full-allocation contracts always exist, but optimizing revenue under this constraint is computationally difficult: no polynomial-time algorithm can achieve any constant-factor approximation in general. We therefore identify tractable regimes. With a constant number of tasks, optimal EF, EF1, and $ε$-EF contracts are computable in polynomial time. With a constant number of agents, exact EF remains hard, even for three agents, while EF1 and $ε$-EF admit additive FPTAS against the EF benchmark. We also show that exact EF can have an unbounded price of fairness, whereas $ε$-EF and EF1 can restore bounded revenue loss.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Robust Aggregation of Calibrated Forecasts

Decision-makers often rely on multiple probabilistic forecasts that are individually calibrated but need not be fully informative. We develop a framework for aggregating such forecasts when the decision-maker knows only that experts satisfy calibration. We show that the joint distribution of calibrated forecasts can contain decision-relevant information that is unavailable from any single expert, so the standard optimal-in-hindsight (OIH) benchmark may substantially understate attainable performance. To formalize this idea, we introduce a robust max-min benchmark: the best payoff a decision-maker can guarantee against all profile-wise conditional-mean mappings compatible with calibration. This benchmark is tractable, admits a linear-programming formulation, and dominates the OIH benchmark up to calibration error. It can nevertheless be strictly below the Bayesian benchmark, clarifying the value of knowing experts' information structures. Finally, we provide online algorithms that attain the robust benchmark under forecast-only feedback and stronger contextual benchmarks under state feedback.

econ.TH↗

arXiv2026

Screening for Choice Sets

We study a screening problem in which an agent privately knows which actions or technologies are feasible and can disclose only a subset to a principal. Once disclosed, feasible options are verifiable and their payoff consequences are publicly known, so private information concerns feasibility rather than payoffs, misreporting restricts the principal's choices directly rather than distorting her beliefs. Assuming feasible sets are ordered by inclusion, we establish a simple characterization of the optimal mechanism, where the principal either behaves as if there is no asymmetric information or locally provides no reward for better proposals. We derive comparative statics and illustrate the framework in applications to managing persuasion, action elicitation, and production-technology elicitation.

econ.TH↗

arXiv2026

Going Public: Communication in Collective Decisions

A principal and $n\ge 2$ agents can launch a project if the principal proposes it and at least $k$ agents accept. Their individual payoffs from the project depend on an ex ante unknown state. The principal can conduct a test to learn about the state and then communicate her findings to the agents via cheap talk. This paper focuses on comparing two communication regimes: public and private messaging. We show that public messaging is weakly dominant: any outcome implementable under private messaging can also be implemented under public messaging. Moreover, in a canonical environment with linear payoffs, we characterize the principal's optimal test in each regime and show that public messaging can be strictly dominant if and only if there exist two agents who are the principal's conflicting allies.

econ.TH↗

arXiv2026

Allocating Resources under Strategic Misrepresentation

We study how to allocate resources to participants who can strategically misrepresent their deservingness at a cost. A principal assigns item(s) (or money) among multiple agents on the basis of their costly signals. Each agent's signal reflects their private type in the absence of misrepresentation but can be inflated above their true type at a cost. The principal is a social planner who aims to maximize the weighted average of matching efficiency and a utilitarian objective. Strategic misrepresentation introduces novel incentive-compatibility constraints, under which we characterize the optimal mechanism. We apply our characterization to two kinds of markets, distinguished by resource scarcity, and show that the principal strictly benefits from randomizing the allocations based on costly signals when the population of participants is large enough. Interestingly, in large markets with scarce resources, the format of the optimal mechanism converges to a winner-takes-all contest; however, there is a non-diminishing value in randomizing allocations to middle types as the population of participants grows.

econ.TH↗

arXiv2026

Learning and Communication Towards Unanimous Consent

A principal and an agent can launch a project under unanimous consent. Their individual payoffs from the project depend on an underlying state, and the agent privately knows his own preference. The principal can conduct a test to learn about the state and then communicate with the agent, but has limited commitment, as she may misreport her findings. We show that limited commitment makes binary tests optimal. Moreover, when players' preferences are positively aligned, the optimal test is a threshold test. When their preferences are negatively aligned, the optimal test is either an interval test or a tail test, depending on the agent's relative risk attitude. Additionally, the principal can benefit from screening the agent through a menu of tests, which admits a simple structure regardless of the complexity of the agent's type space.

econ.TH↗

arXiv2026

Anonymous Pricing in Large Markets

We study revenue maximization when a seller offers $k$ identical units to ex ante heterogeneous, unit-demand buyers. While anonymous pricing can be $Θ(\log k)$ worse than optimal in general multi-unit environments, we show that this pessimism disappears in large markets, where no single buyer accounts for a non-negligible share of optimal revenue. Under (quasi-)regularity, anonymous pricing achieves a $2+O(1/\sqrt{k})$ approximation to the optimal mechanism; the worst-case ratio is maximized at about $2.47$ when $k=1$ and converges to $2$ as $k$ grows. This indicates that the gains from third-degree price discrimination are mild in large markets.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Exploration and Incentivizing Participation in Randomized Trials

Participation incentives is a well-known issue inhibiting randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in medicine, as well as a potential cause of user dissatisfaction for RCTs in online platforms. We frame this issue as a non-standard exploration-exploitation tradeoff: an RCT would like to explore as uniformly as possible, whereas each "agent" (a patient or a user) prefers "exploitation", i.e., treatments that seem best. We incentivize participation by leveraging information asymmetry between the trial and the agents. We measure statistical performance via worst-case estimation error under adversarially generated outcomes, a standard objective for RCTs. We obtain a near-optimal solution in terms of this objective: an incentive-compatible mechanism with a particular guarantee, and a nearly matching impossibility result for any incentive-compatible mechanism. We consider three model variants: homogeneous agents (of the same "type" comprising beliefs and preferences), heterogeneous agents, and an extension that leverages estimated type frequencies to mitigate the influence of rare-but-difficult agent types.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Budget Pacing in Repeated Auctions: Regret and Efficiency without Convergence

We study the aggregate welfare and individual regret guarantees of dynamic \emph{pacing algorithms} in the context of repeated auctions with budgets. Such algorithms are commonly used as bidding agents in Internet advertising platforms, adaptively learning to shade bids by a tunable linear multiplier in order to match a specified budget. We show that when agents simultaneously apply a natural form of gradient-based pacing, the liquid welfare obtained over the course of the learning dynamics is at least half the optimal expected liquid welfare obtainable by any allocation rule. Crucially, this result holds \emph{without requiring convergence of the dynamics}, allowing us to circumvent known complexity-theoretic obstacles of finding equilibria. This result is also robust to the correlation structure between agent valuations and holds for any \emph{core auction}, a broad class of auctions that includes first-price, second-price, and generalized second-price auctions as special cases. For individual guarantees, we further show such pacing algorithms enjoy \emph{dynamic regret} bounds for individual utility- and value-maximization, with respect to the sequence of budget-pacing bids, for any auction satisfying a monotone bang-for-buck property. To complement our theoretical findings, we provide semi-synthetic numerical simulations based on auction data from the Bing Advertising platform.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Three Tiers and Thresholds: Incentives in Private Market Investing

This paper studies optimal contract design in private market investing, focusing on internal decision making in venture capital and private equity firms. A principal relies on an agent who privately exerts costly due diligence effort and then recommends whether to invest. Outcomes are observable ex post even when an opportunity is declined, allowing compensation to reward both successful investments and prudent decisions to pass. We characterize profit maximizing contracts that induce information acquisition and truthful reporting. We show that three tier contracts are sufficient, with payments contingent on the agent's recommendation and the realized return. In symmetric environments satisfying the monotone likelihood ratio property, the optimal contract further simplifies to a threshold contract that pays only when the recommendation is aligned with an extreme realized return. These results provide guidance for performance based compensation that promotes diligent screening while limiting excessive risk taking.

cs.GT↗