Fair Contracts in Principal-Agent Games with Heterogeneous Types

Christos Dimitrakakis; Jakub T{\l}uczek; Victor Villin

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 37 references

Fair Contracts in Principal-Agent Games with Heterogeneous Types

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a fairness-aware principal, guided only by a penalty on the variance of wealth, can learn one linear contract that equalizes outcomes between agents with hidden, unequal abilities in a sequential social dilemma…

desk verdict A plausible but unreproducible empirical claim: the main result depends on a fairness regularizer that Algorithm 1 never actually uses, so the paper needs a major revision before its central comparison can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.15887 v1 pith:7X5IVSAS submitted 2025-06-18 cs.GT cs.LGcs.MA

Jakub T{l}uczek , Victor Villin , Christos Dimitrakakis This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.GTcs.LGcs.MA

keywords principal-agentgamescontracttheoryfairnessmulti-agentreinforcementlearningsequentialsocialdilemmalinearcontractsheterogeneoustypesGiniindex

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that a principal who cares about fairness can fix inequality between agents with hidden, unequal abilities without paying an efficiency penalty. In a repeated principal-agent game built on the Coin Game, a principal offers the same linear contract—a fixed share of the reward—to two agents whose true strengths are 1.25 and 0.75 and who never reveal them. Adding a penalty on the variance of all players' accumulated wealth to the principal's reward leads it to learn a contract that raises the equality index $1-\text{Gini}$ to 0.99, while total welfare stays at 45.3, slightly above the best fixed-contract baseline. The authors take this as evidence that fairness can be induced through simple, homogeneous contracts even when the principal has no direct access to agent types.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the linear contract, a scalar share $\alpha\in[0,1]$ of the reward the agent helps generate: each non-rejecting agent $i$ receives $\alpha\theta_i r_i-c$, the principal keeps $(1-\alpha)\theta_i r_i$, and limited liability holds automatically. The principal's policy is a Gaussian distribution over $\alpha$ whose mean and variance are learned state-dependent parameters, which keeps agents from predicting and exploiting the contract. The fairness mechanism is a regularizer that adds $\lambda F(W_t)$ to the principal's reward, with $F(W)=-\mathrm{Var}[W]$ over the cumulative wealth of all parties; this is what steers the learned policy toward equal outcomes. A smaller learning rate for the principal than for the agents, $\eta_p\ll\eta_a$, prevents the principal from exploiting slow-learning agents by collapsing $\alpha$.

What would settle it

Train the same variance-regularized principal on the same Coin Game with types 2.0 and 0.5 instead of 1.25 and 0.75, keeping all other hyperparameters and the board fixed. If the learned contract does not keep $1-\text{Gini}$ near 0.99 while preserving welfare at the fixed-contract level, then the claimed fairness-by-one-linear-contract result is specific to the tested type ratio rather than a general property of the method.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that fairness can be engineered from the principal's side alone, using only one scalar $\alpha\in[0,1]$ and the players' accumulated wealth. In the coin game with hidden types $\theta_{\text{red}}=1.25$, $\theta_{\text{blue}}=0.75$, a principal trained by policy gradient whose reward is its own surplus plus $\lambda$ times the negative variance of all players' wealth learns to issue a homogeneous linear contract that yields $1-\text{Gini}=0.99$ and welfare 45.3, beating fixed contracts (0.95, 44.9) and welfare-regularized alternatives. The contract equalizes final wealth across the principal and both agents, improving the Rawlsian outcome from 11.0 under a fixed contract to 14.7 while keeping welfare essentially unchanged. The paper's claim is therefore that fairness does not come at the cost of efficiency for this class of hidden-type principal-agent games.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one flat percentage-of-earnings contract can, in the specific game tested, make a stronger agent and a weaker agent accumulate equal wealth without lowering total wealth; the paper tests only ability levels 1.25 and 0.75 on one 3-by-3 grid, so an unrepresentative type pair would collapse the broad claim.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the tested Coin Game configuration, the principal can promote equity without observing or eliciting the agents' hidden types; one contract offered to all agents is enough.
Fairness-aware contracts matched or exceeded the baselines on the paper's headline metrics: the variance-regularized principal reached $1-\text{Gini}=0.99$ with welfare 45.3, versus 0.95 and 44.9 for fixed contracts.
The poorest agent benefits most: the Rawlsian index rises from 11.0 under a fixed contract to 14.7 under variance regularization.
The learned behavior is stable across three seeds, while welfare-based regularization shows instability in late training, suggesting the variance penalty is a more reliable fairness mechanism in this setting.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The authors observe that variance-based fairness ignores type heterogeneity; the unstated risk is that equal wealth is reached by suppressing the high-type agent rather than raising the low-type agent, so equality scores should be read together with effort or productivity measures.
A direct extension they do not run is widening the type gap (say 2.0 and 0.5) or adding a third agent; success would generalize the claim, while failure would show the single-contract mechanism is bounded to the tested type configuration.
Because the paper only tests $F(W)=-\mathrm{Var}[W]$, replacing it with Jain's index or Gini would clarify whether the fairness effect is specific to variance or generic to penalizing wealth dispersion.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The one thing to know: this paper's headline result—variance-regularized principal learns homogeneous linear contracts that equalize wealth without welfare loss—is plausible but not actually reproducible from the manuscript. Algorithm 1, which is supposed to outline the learning procedure, accumulates principal wealth with the greedy objective and updates the principal policy with ∇ w_p; the fairness term λF(W_t) from Section 5.2 never appears, and cumulative wealth W_t is never listed as part of the principal's observation. As written, the VR algorithm is identical to Greedy, which would make the central comparison vacuous. The authors may well have implemented the regularized objective and forgot to update the pseudocode, but a reader cannot tell.

What is genuinely new is the combination: learned linear contracts, hidden heterogeneous types, and a variance-based fairness regularizer in a repeated principal-agent MARL setting. The Coin Game experiments are cleanly designed, the baselines are sensible, and the results at λ=1 (1-Gini 0.99, welfare 45.3, Rawlsian 14.7) are consistent across three seeds. The paper is honest about the limited domain, and the writing is mostly clear.

The soft spots are real. The pseudocode mismatch is the biggest, because the paper's central claim is precisely that fairness-aware regularization changes the learned contracts. Second, the evidence is one 3×3 grid, two agents, one type pair (1.25, 0.75), three seeds, and no code. Third, the evaluation metric (1-Gini) overlaps the training objective (negative variance), so the equality result is partly induced; the non-circular part—welfare preservation and Rawlsian gain—is what actually supports the claim. Minor: the fixed contract share of 2/3 is selected somewhat arbitrarily, and the paper's claim that 'parameters were unchanged across all experiments' is contradicted by the use of different λ values and baselines.

This paper deserves a serious referee, but only with a request for the actual VR update rule and code, plus experiments across more type gaps and board sizes. In its current form I would not cite it, since the main result is not verifiable from the text. Bring it to reading group if you want a concrete example of why pseudocode integrity matters in empirical ML papers.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper formalizes a repeated principal-agent Markov game with heterogeneous agent types and studies learning of homogeneous linear contracts, where the principal proposes a share alpha in [0,1] and agents accept or reject and receive alpha*theta_i*r_i - c. The authors propose two regularizers for the principal: a welfare-based regularizer and a fairness-based regularizer that penalizes the variance of cumulative wealth across all parties. In the Coin Game with two agents of types 1.25 and 0.75, they report that variance regularization with lambda=1 achieves 1-Gini 0.99, welfare 45.3, and Rawlsian index 14.7, outperforming greedy, fixed-contract, welfare-regularized, and no-principal baselines, and conclude that fairness does not come at the cost of efficiency.

Significance. If the empirical claim is reproducible, the result is a useful existence proof that a simple, interpretable contract class can equalize outcomes in a sequential social dilemma under hidden type heterogeneity without a large welfare loss. The paper's strengths are its clear problem setup, the use of contract-theoretic constraints as design principles, the inclusion of multiple baselines, and the transparent reporting of means and standard deviations in the appendix. However, the central evidence rests on a single environment and a single pair of types, and the pseudocode does not specify the fairness-augmented objective used for the reported variance-regularization results. There is no code release or formal result supporting generalization across type gaps.

major comments (4)

[Section 5.2 and Algorithm 1] Section 5.2 defines the principal's fairness-aware reward as R_p^fair = sum_i (1-alpha_t) theta_i r_i^t + lambda F(W_t) with F(W_t) = -Var[W_t], but Algorithm 1 (lines 14-17) accumulates only w_p <- (1-alpha_t) theta_i r_i^t and updates the principal policy with grad_{phi_p} w_hat_p. The cumulative wealth vector W_t is never stated to be part of the principal's observation or of the PPO loss, and no second algorithm for the regularized objective is given. Therefore the reader cannot determine whether the reported 1-Gini = 0.99 comes from the variance regularizer or from an unspecified implementation detail; if the code follows Algorithm 1, the VR and Greedy updates coincide and the comparison is vacuous.
[Section 6 and Section 4.2] Section 6 fixes the hidden types to (theta_red, theta_blue) = (1.25, 0.75) on a single 3x3 grid with cost c = 0.01. The abstract and introduction claim that a fairness-aware principal can learn homogeneous linear contracts that equalize outcomes for heterogeneous agents, but Section 4.2 restricts contracts to a single scalar alpha in [0,1] and no theoretical result establishes that such a contract can equalize wealth for arbitrary type ratios. The authors themselves note in Section 5.2 that variance-based fairness does not account for heterogeneity, so the paper should either add experiments with larger type gaps and different environment parameters or explicitly scope the claim to the tested setting.
[Table 1 and Section 6] The primary fairness metric, 1-Gini, is a wealth-equality index closely aligned with the training objective -Var[W_t], so the near-maximal score of 0.99 is partly induced by the objective rather than being an emergent property. The more convincing evidence for the no-efficiency-loss claim is the Rawlsian index and welfare, which are not directly optimized. In addition, Table 1 compares VR's three-player welfare (45.3) with NoP's two-player welfare (45.7), which is not an apples-to-apples comparison because NoP excludes the principal; the appropriate efficiency benchmark is Fix (44.9) or WR (44.9).
[Section 6 / Table 2] All conclusions are based on three seeds, and several baseline results have very large standard deviations (e.g., WR lambda=12 welfare 32.3 +/- 16.1, Greedy welfare 8.6 +/- 8.1). The paper should report significance or at least discuss the stability of the advantage claimed for VR.

minor comments (5)

[Algorithm 1] The indentation and update schedule of Algorithm 1 are ambiguous: line 15 estimates episodic wealth inside the timestep loop, and the principal update on line 17 appears to execute inside the episode loop; please clarify the exact order of updates.
[Section 4.2] The Gaussian policy alpha ~ N(mu_s, sigma_s) can sample values outside the contract space [0,1]; if samples are clipped or reparameterized, this should be stated explicitly.
[Section 5.2] The definition of W_t is underspecified: it should be stated whether W_t is the vector of cumulative episodic wealth, whether it is reset at each episode, and how it is incorporated into a per-step reward rather than a terminal reward.
[Table 1] The NoP row is computed without the principal, which makes the welfare comparison across rows potentially misleading; this caveat should appear in the main text, not only in a table note.
[Section 2] There is a typo in 'identical contracts to as a mean of incentive design' and several other awkward phrasings; a careful proofread would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the variance-regularized fairness result is an empirical optimization outcome, not the evaluation metric by construction; a flagged algorithm/objective mismatch is a reproducibility issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claim is that a principal trained with a fairness-augmented reward (Section 5.2, R_p^fair = Σ(1−α_t)θ_i r_i^t + λF(W_t), F(W)=−Var[W]) learns contracts that equalize wealth, measured by 1−Gini (Section 6). This is not circular: the training objective and evaluation metric are distinct functions of wealth, and optimizing negative variance does not by construction maximize 1−Gini or preserve welfare, which is also reported. The welfare and Rawlsian results are not directly optimized and therefore provide independent evidence. No parameter is fitted to the evaluation metric; λ is a fixed altruism coefficient tested over a small grid. The only load-bearing citations are to external prior work ([25], [37]) and are not self-citations. The most serious issue is an internal inconsistency: Algorithm 1 (lines 14–17) accumulates only the non-regularized principal wealth and omits the λF(W_t) term from the gradient update, so the reported VR result cannot be reconstructed from the pseudocode alone. That is a reproducibility gap, not a circular reduction of the result to its inputs; the derivation does not define the prediction in terms of the evaluation metric. Hence no circular step meets the required standard of exhibiting an equation or fitted parameter that makes the output equivalent to the input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a domain assumption about how types scale rewards, a restriction to linear contracts, an assumption that learned agents approximate rational best responders, and a hand-chosen fairness signal (negative variance). The main free parameters are the fairness weight lambda, the agent types, the action cost, and the fixed-contract baseline share.

free parameters (4)

lambda (fairness weight) = VR: 1 (also tested 0.75, 1.25); WR: 9 (also 1, 12)
Hand-tuned weight on the fairness or welfare regularizer in the principal's reward. The central variance-regularization result uses lambda = 1.
theta_red, theta_blue (agent types) = 1.25, 0.75
Chosen by hand; the feasibility of equalizing wealth with a single linear contract depends on this type gap.
c (action cost) = 0.01
Fixed cost for acting, set in Section 6; affects whether agents accept contracts and the magnitude of wealth.
alpha_fix (fixed contract share) = 2/3
Baseline contract share selected based on preliminary experiments and the intuition that the principal keeps about one-third of the reward.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption An agent's type theta_i scales its effective contribution theta_i * r_i^t, following prior work.
Used to define contractual rewards in Section 3; this is how heterogeneity enters the model.
domain assumption Contracts are restricted to linear shares alpha in [0,1], so limited liability holds by design.
Section 4.2; this restriction makes the contract space tractable but limits the principal's expressiveness.
domain assumption Agents are approximately rational best-responders, so incentive compatibility and individual rationality are satisfied when agents act optimally.
Section 4.1; in practice agents learn with PPO and may violate IR due to value estimation errors, as the paper itself notes.
ad hoc to paper Negative variance of all parties' wealth is an appropriate fairness signal despite known heterogeneity.
Section 5.2; the paper acknowledges variance-based fairness does not account for type differences but uses it because it is simple and tractable.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fair Contracts in Principal-Agent Games with Heterogeneous Types." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7X5IVSAS

@misc{pith2026250615887,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fair Contracts in Principal-Agent Games with Heterogeneous Types},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7X5IVSAS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.15887}
}

read the original abstract

Fairness is desirable yet challenging to achieve within multi-agent systems, especially when agents differ in latent traits that affect their abilities. This hidden heterogeneity often leads to unequal distributions of wealth, even when agents operate under the same rules. Motivated by real-world examples, we propose a framework based on repeated principal-agent games, where a principal, who also can be seen as a player of the game, learns to offer adaptive contracts to agents. By leveraging a simple yet powerful contract structure, we show that a fairness-aware principal can learn homogeneous linear contracts that equalize outcomes across agents in a sequential social dilemma. Importantly, this fairness does not come at the cost of efficiency: our results demonstrate that it is possible to promote equity and stability in the system while preserving overall performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.15887 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The mean final spread of welfare among principal and agents, with wiskers indicating the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Comparison of mean wealth achieved by players over the course of the training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Means of contracts of the policy learned by the principal with wealth variance regularization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

[1]

Albrecht, Filippos Christianos, and Lukas Schäfer

Stefano V . Albrecht, Filippos Christianos, and Lukas Schäfer. Multi-agent reinforcement learning: foundations and modern approaches . The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2024

work page 2024
[2]

Bayesian Analysis of Linear Contracts, July 2023

Tal Alon, Paul Dütting, Yingkai Li, and Inbal Talgam-Cohen. Bayesian Analysis of Linear Contracts, July 2023. arXiv:2211.06850 [cs, econ]

arXiv 2023
[3]

Contracts with Private Cost per Unit-of-Effort

Tal Alon, Paul Dütting, and Inbal Talgam-Cohen. Contracts with Private Cost per Unit-of-Effort, November 2021. arXiv:2111.09179 [cs]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021
[4]

Combinatorial agency

Moshe Babaioff, Michal Feldman, and Noam Nisan. Combinatorial agency. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Electronic commerce , pages 18–28, Ann Arbor Michigan USA, June 2006. ACM

work page 2006
[5]

Adaptive Mechanism Design: Learning to Promote Cooperation

Tobias Baumann, Thore Graepel, and John Shawe-Taylor. Adaptive Mechanism Design: Learning to Promote Cooperation, November 2019. arXiv:1806.04067 [cs]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[6]

Contract theory

Patrick Bolton and Mathias Dewatripont. Contract theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Londin, England, 2005. 9

work page 2005
[7]

Handbook of Computational Social Choice

Felix Brandt. Handbook of Computational Social Choice . Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1st ed edition, 2016

work page 2016
[8]

Designing Menus of Contracts Efficiently: The Power of Randomization

Matteo Castiglioni, Alberto Marchesi, and Nicola Gatti. Designing Menus of Contracts Effi- ciently: The Power of Randomization, August 2022. arXiv:2202.10966 [cs]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

Show all 37 references

[9]

Multi-Agent Contract Design: How to Commission Multiple Agents with Individual Outcomes

Matteo Castiglioni, Alberto Marchesi, and Nicola Gatti. Multi-Agent Contract Design: How to Commission Multiple Agents with Individual Outcomes. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , pages 412–448, London United Kingdom, July
[10]

AI-driven Prices for Externalities and Sustainability in Production Markets, January 2023

Panayiotis Danassis, Aris Filos-Ratsikas, Haipeng Chen, Milind Tambe, and Boi Faltings. AI-driven Prices for Externalities and Sustainability in Production Markets, January 2023. arXiv:2106.06060 [cs]

2023 arXiv
[11]

Estimating and Incentivizing Imperfect- Knowledge Agents with Hidden Rewards, August 2023

Ilgin Dogan, Zuo-Jun Max Shen, and Anil Aswani. Estimating and Incentivizing Imperfect- Knowledge Agents with Hidden Rewards, August 2023. arXiv:2308.06717 [cs, stat]

2023 arXiv
[12]

Repeated Principal-Agent Games with Unobserved Agent Rewards and Perfect-Knowledge Agents, May 2023

Ilgin Dogan, Zuo-Jun Max Shen, and Anil Aswani. Repeated Principal-Agent Games with Unobserved Agent Rewards and Perfect-Knowledge Agents, May 2023. arXiv:2304.07407 [cs, stat]

2023 arXiv
[13]

Fairness Through Awareness, November 2011

Cynthia Dwork, Moritz Hardt, Toniann Pitassi, Omer Reingold, and Rich Zemel. Fairness Through Awareness, November 2011. arXiv:1104.3913 [cs]

2011 arXiv
[14]

Multi-Agent Contracts, November 2022

Paul Dütting, Tomer Ezra, Michal Feldman, and Thomas Kesselheim. Multi-Agent Contracts, November 2022. arXiv:2211.05434 [cs]

2022
[15]

Multi-Agent Combinato- rial Contracts, May 2024

Paul Dütting, Tomer Ezra, Michal Feldman, and Thomas Kesselheim. Multi-Agent Combinato- rial Contracts, May 2024. arXiv:2405.08260 [cs]

2024 arXiv
[16]

Algorithmic Contract Theory: A Survey, December 2024

Paul Dütting, Michal Feldman, and Inbal Talgam-Cohen. Algorithmic Contract Theory: A Survey, December 2024. arXiv:2412.16384 [cs]

2024 arXiv
[17]

Simple versus Optimal Contracts

Paul Dütting, Tim Roughgarden, and Inbal Talgam-Cohen. Simple versus Optimal Contracts. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation , pages 369–387, Phoenix AZ USA, June 2019. ACM

2019
[18]

The Complexity of Contracts, February 2020

Paul Dütting, Tim Roughgarden, and Inbal Talgam-Cohen. The Complexity of Contracts, February 2020. arXiv:2002.12034 [cs]

2020 arXiv
[19]

Fairness and Contract Design

Ernst Fehr, Alexander Klein, and Klaus M Schmidt. Fairness and Contract Design. Economet- rica, 75(1):121–154, January 2007

2007
[20]

Foerster, Richard Y

Jakob N. Foerster, Richard Y . Chen, Maruan Al-Shedivat, Shimon Whiteson, Pieter Abbeel, and Igor Mordatch. Learning with Opponent-Learning Awareness, September 2018. arXiv:1709.04326 [cs]

2018 arXiv
[21]

Wang, and S

Guru Guruganesh, Yoav Kolumbus, Jon Schneider, Inbal Talgam-Cohen, Emmanouil-Vasileios Vlatakis-Gkaragkounis, Joshua R. Wang, and S. Matthew Weinberg. Contracting with a Learning Agent, January 2024. arXiv:2401.16198 [cs, econ]

2024 arXiv
[22]

Guru Guruganesh, Jon Schneider, and Joshua R. Wang. Contracts under Moral Hazard and Adverse Selection. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, pages 563–582, Budapest Hungary, July 2021. ACM

2021
[23]

Aggregation and Linearity in the Provision of Intertempo- ral Incentives

Bengt Holmstrom and Paul Milgrom. Aggregation and Linearity in the Provision of Intertempo- ral Incentives. Econometrica, 55(2):303, March 1987

1987
[24]

Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning: A Comprehensive Survey, July 2024

Dom Huh and Prasant Mohapatra. Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning: A Comprehensive Survey, July 2024. arXiv:2312.10256 [cs]

2024 arXiv
[25]

Dima Ivanov, Paul Dütting, Inbal Talgam-Cohen, Tonghan Wang, and David C. Parkes. Principal- Agent Reinforcement Learning, July 2024. arXiv:2407.18074 [cs]

2024 arXiv
[26]

Learning Fairness in Multi-Agent Systems, October 2019

Jiechuan Jiang and Zongqing Lu. Learning Fairness in Multi-Agent Systems, October 2019. arXiv:1910.14472 [cs, stat]

2019 arXiv
[27]

Peizhong Ju, Arnob Ghosh, and Ness B. Shroff. Achieving Fairness in Multi-Agent Markov Decision Processes Using Reinforcement Learning, June 2023. arXiv:2306.00324 [cs]

2023 arXiv
[28]

The Theory of Incentives: The Principal-Agent Model

Jean-Jacques Laffont and David Martimort. The Theory of Incentives: The Principal-Agent Model. Princeton University Press, December 2009. 10

2009
[29]

Leibo, Vinicius Zambaldi, Marc Lanctot, Janusz Marecki, and Thore Grae- pel

Joel Z. Leibo, Vinicius Zambaldi, Marc Lanctot, Janusz Marecki, and Thore Grae- pel. Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning in Sequential Social Dilemmas, February 2017. arXiv:1702.03037 [cs]

2017 arXiv
[30]

Algorithmic game theory

Noam Nisan, editor. Algorithmic game theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ; New York, 2007. OCLC: ocn122526907

2007
[31]

Dario Paccagnan, Rahul Chandan, and Jason R. Marden. Utility and mechanism design in multi-agent systems: An overview. Annual Reviews in Control, 53:315–328, 2022

2022
[32]

The economics of contracts: a primer

Bernard Salanié. The economics of contracts: a primer . The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mas- sachusetts London, England, second edition edition, 2005

2005
[33]

Jordan, and Alain Durmus

Antoine Scheid, Daniil Tiapkin, Etienne Boursier, Aymeric Capitaine, El Mahdi El Mhamdi, Eric Moulines, Michael I. Jordan, and Alain Durmus. Incentivized Learning in Principal-Agent Bandit Games, March 2024. arXiv:2403.03811 [cs, stat]

2024 arXiv
[34]

Learning to Incentivize Other Learning Agents, October 2020

Jiachen Yang, Ang Li, Mehrdad Farajtabar, Peter Sunehag, Edward Hughes, and Hongyuan Zha. Learning to Incentivize Other Learning Agents, October 2020. arXiv:2006.06051 [cs]

2020 arXiv
[35]

Adaptive In- centive Design with Multi-Agent Meta-Gradient Reinforcement Learning, December 2021

Jiachen Yang, Ethan Wang, Rakshit Trivedi, Tuo Zhao, and Hongyuan Zha. Adaptive In- centive Design with Multi-Agent Meta-Gradient Reinforcement Learning, December 2021. arXiv:2112.10859 [cs]

2021 arXiv
[36]

Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning: A Selective Overview of Theories and Algorithms, April 2021

Kaiqing Zhang, Zhuoran Yang, and Tamer Ba¸ sar. Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning: A Selective Overview of Theories and Algorithms, April 2021. arXiv:1911.10635 [cs]

2021 arXiv
[37]

Parkes, and Richard Socher

Stephan Zheng, Alexander Trott, Sunil Srinivasa, Nikhil Naik, Melvin Gruesbeck, David C. Parkes, and Richard Socher. The AI Economist: Improving Equality and Productivity with AI-Driven Tax Policies, April 2020. arXiv:2004.13332 [econ]. 11 A Additional results Principal Red Bl...

2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Albrecht, Filippos Christianos, and Lukas Schäfer

Stefano V . Albrecht, Filippos Christianos, and Lukas Schäfer. Multi-agent reinforcement learning: foundations and modern approaches . The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2024

work page 2024

[2] [2]

Bayesian Analysis of Linear Contracts, July 2023

Tal Alon, Paul Dütting, Yingkai Li, and Inbal Talgam-Cohen. Bayesian Analysis of Linear Contracts, July 2023. arXiv:2211.06850 [cs, econ]

arXiv 2023

[3] [3]

Contracts with Private Cost per Unit-of-Effort

Tal Alon, Paul Dütting, and Inbal Talgam-Cohen. Contracts with Private Cost per Unit-of-Effort, November 2021. arXiv:2111.09179 [cs]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

[4] [4]

Combinatorial agency

Moshe Babaioff, Michal Feldman, and Noam Nisan. Combinatorial agency. In Proceedings of the 7th ACM conference on Electronic commerce , pages 18–28, Ann Arbor Michigan USA, June 2006. ACM

work page 2006

[5] [5]

Adaptive Mechanism Design: Learning to Promote Cooperation

Tobias Baumann, Thore Graepel, and John Shawe-Taylor. Adaptive Mechanism Design: Learning to Promote Cooperation, November 2019. arXiv:1806.04067 [cs]

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[6] [6]

Contract theory

Patrick Bolton and Mathias Dewatripont. Contract theory. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Londin, England, 2005. 9

work page 2005

[7] [7]

Handbook of Computational Social Choice

Felix Brandt. Handbook of Computational Social Choice . Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1st ed edition, 2016

work page 2016

[8] [8]

Designing Menus of Contracts Efficiently: The Power of Randomization

Matteo Castiglioni, Alberto Marchesi, and Nicola Gatti. Designing Menus of Contracts Effi- ciently: The Power of Randomization, August 2022. arXiv:2202.10966 [cs]

work page Pith review arXiv 2022