IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2503.02592.html

Succinct Ambiguous Contracts

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Duetting
  • Michal Feldman
  • Yarden Rashti

Abstract

Real-world contracts are often ambiguous. While recent work by D\"utting, Feldman, Peretz, and Samuelson (EC 2023, Econometrica 2024) demonstrates that ambiguous contracts can yield large gains for the principal, their optimal solutions often require deploying an impractically large menu of contracts. This paper investigates \emph{succinct} ambiguous contracts, which are restricted to consist of at most $k$ classic contracts. By letting $k$ range from $1$ to $n-1$, this yields an interpolation between classic contracts ($k=1$) and unrestricted ambiguous contracts ($k=n-1$). This perspective enables important structural and algorithmic results. First, we establish a fundamental separability property: for any number of actions $n$ and any succinctness level $k$, computing an optimal $k$-ambiguous contract reduces to finding optimal classic contracts over a suitable partition of the actions, up to an additive balancing shift acting as a base payment. Second, we show bounds on the principal's loss from using a $k$-ambiguous rather than an unrestricted ambiguous contract, which uncover a striking discontinuity in the principal's utility regarding contract size: lacking even a single contract option may cause the principal's utility to drop sharply by a multiplicative factor of $2$, a bound we prove to be tight. Finally, we characterize the tractability frontier of the optimal $k$-ambiguous contract problem. Our separability result yields a poly-time algorithm whenever the number of partitions of $n-1$ actions into $k$ sets is polynomial, recovering and extending known results for classic and unrestricted ambiguous contracts. We complement this with a tight hardness result, showing that the problem is \textsf{NP}-hard whenever the number of partitions is super-polynomial. Moreover, when $k \approx n/3$, the problem is even hard to approximate.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Duetting & Michal Feldman & Yarden Rashti, 2025. "Succinct Ambiguous Contracts," Papers 2503.02592, arXiv.org, revised Feb 2026.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2503.02592
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.02592
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gilboa Itzhak & Schmeidler David, 1993. "Updating Ambiguous Beliefs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 33-49, February.
    2. Bernheim, B Douglas & Whinston, Michael D, 1998. "Incomplete Contracts and Strategic Ambiguity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 902-932, September.
    3. Beauchêne, Dorian & Li, Jian & Li, Ming, 2019. "Ambiguous persuasion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 312-365.
    4. Ross, Stephen A, 1973. "The Economic Theory of Agency: The Principal's Problem," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 63(2), pages 134-139, May.
    5. Daniel Walton & Gabriel Carroll, 2022. "A General Framework for Robust Contracting Models," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(5), pages 2129-2159, September.
    6. Hermalin, Benjamin E & Katz, Michael L, 1991. "Moral Hazard and Verifiability: The Effects of Renegotiation in Agency," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 59(6), pages 1735-1753, November.
    7. Alfredo di Tillio & Nenad Kos & Matthias Messner, 2017. "The Design of Ambiguous Mechanisms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(1), pages 237-276.
    8. Tianjiao Dai & Juuso Toikka, 2022. "Robust Incentives for Teams," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(4), pages 1583-1613, July.
    9. Subir Bose & Ludovic Renou, 2014. "Mechanism Design With Ambiguous Communication Devices," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82, pages 1853-1872, September.
    10. Paul Duetting & Michal Feldman & Inbal Talgam-Cohen, 2024. "Algorithmic Contract Theory: A Survey," Papers 2412.16384, arXiv.org.
    11. Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Subjective Probability and Expected Utility without Additivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 571-587, May.
    12. Bodoh-Creed, Aaron L., 2012. "Ambiguous beliefs and mechanism design," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 75(2), pages 518-537.
    13. Kambhampati, Ashwin, 2023. "Randomization is optimal in the robust principal-agent problem," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    14. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1983. "An Analysis of the Principal-Agent Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(1), pages 7-45, January.
    15. Gabriel Carroll, 2015. "Robustness and Linear Contracts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(2), pages 536-563, February.
    16. Lopomo, Giuseppe & Rigotti, Luca & Shannon, Chris, 2011. "Knightian uncertainty and moral hazard," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 146(3), pages 1148-1172, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Paul Duetting & Michal Feldman & Inbal Talgam-Cohen, 2024. "Algorithmic Contract Theory: A Survey," Papers 2412.16384, arXiv.org.
    2. Paul Dütting & Michal Feldman & Daniel Peretz & Larry Samuelson, 2024. "Ambiguous Contracts," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 92(6), pages 1967-1992, November.
    3. Rosenthal, Maxwell, 2023. "Robust incentives for risk," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. Christian Kellner, 2017. "The principal-agent problem with smooth ambiguity," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 21(2), pages 83-119, June.
    5. Evren, Özgür, 2019. "Recursive non-expected utility: Connecting ambiguity attitudes to risk preferences and the level of ambiguity," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 285-307.
    6. Bhattacharya, Vivek & Manuelli, Lucas & Straub, Ludwig, 2018. "Imperfect public monitoring with a fear of signal distortion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 1-37.
    7. Auster, Sarah & Kellner, Christian, 2022. "Robust bidding and revenue in descending price auctions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    8. Carrasco, Vinicius & Farinha Luz, Vitor & Kos, Nenad & Messner, Matthias & Monteiro, Paulo & Moreira, Humberto, 2018. "Optimal selling mechanisms under moment conditions," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 245-279.
    9. Beauchêne, Dorian & Li, Jian & Li, Ming, 2019. "Ambiguous persuasion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 312-365.
    10. Rosenthal, Maxwell, 0. "Simple incentives and diverse beliefs," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society.
    11. Song, Yangwei, 2018. "Efficient Implementation with Interdependent Valuations and Maxmin Agents," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 92, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    12. Wolitzky, Alexander, 2016. "Mechanism design with maxmin agents: theory and an application to bilateral trade," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 11(3), September.
    13. Tang, Rui & Zhang, Mu, 2021. "Maxmin implementation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    14. Grant, Simon & Stauber, Ronald, 2022. "Delegation and ambiguity in correlated equilibrium," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 487-509.
    15. Florian Mudekereza, 2026. "Motivating Innovation with Misspecified Contracts," Papers 2602.18879, arXiv.org.
    16. repec:upd:utmpwp:032 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Frank Riedel, 2017. "Uncertain Acts in Games," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 275-292, December.
    18. Xiaoyu Cheng, 2019. "Relative Maximum Likelihood Updating of Ambiguous Beliefs," Papers 1911.02678, arXiv.org, revised Oct 2021.
    19. Burkett, Justin & Rosenthal, Maxwell, 2024. "Statistical uncertainty and coarse contracts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 220(C).
    20. Ju Hu & Xi Weng, 2021. "Robust persuasion of a privately informed receiver," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 72(3), pages 909-953, October.
    21. De Castro, Luciano & Yannelis, Nicholas C., 2018. "Uncertainty, efficiency and incentive compatibility: Ambiguity solves the conflict between efficiency and incentive compatibility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 678-707.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2503.02592. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.