arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

Technical Note—Error Noted in “Robust Contract Designs: Linear Contracts and Moral Hazard” by Yu and Kong (2020)

Jingyuan Yang & Linwei Xin

Operations Research2026https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2024.1221article
FT50UTD24AJG 4*ABDC A*
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

One of the key claims in the paper “Robust Contract Designs: Linear Contracts and Moral Hazard” by Yu and Kong (2020) is proposition 4. This proposition states that when designing the best robust contract—assuming the agent’s utility function is piecewise linear and concave—the optimal solution involves only progressive fixed payments and linear rewards with progressive commission rates. In this note, we provide a clear counterexample backed by a detailed proof to show that this claim is actually incorrect. We further use numerical examples to demonstrate that the contract design suggested by Yu and Kong can perform significantly worse than expected. Lastly, we identify and explain the specific mistakes in their mathematical proofs that led them to this incorrect conclusion.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2024.1221

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{jingyuan2026,
  title        = {{Technical Note—Error Noted in “Robust Contract Designs: Linear Contracts and Moral Hazard” by Yu and Kong (2020)}},
  author       = {Jingyuan Yang & Linwei Xin},
  journal      = {Operations Research},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2024.1221},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Technical Note—Error Noted in “Robust Contract Designs: Linear Contracts and Moral Hazard” by Yu and Kong (2020)

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.