CyberSec Research

People tend to walk in groups, and interactions with those groups have a significant impact on crowd behavior and pedestrian traffic dynamics. Social norms can be seen as unwritten rules regulating people interactions in social settings. This article studies people interactions with groups and the emergence of group proxemics. Group zones, zone occupancy counts and people clearance from the group are studied using naturalistic data. Analysis indicate potential presence of three different zones in addition to the public zone. People tend to remain in the public zone and only progressively get closer to groups, and those closer approaches happen in a low frequency and for brief periods of time.

We study the problem of allocating a set of indivisible items to agents with supermodular utilities to maximize the Nash social welfare. We show that the problem is NP-hard for any approximation factor.

In this paper, we study decentralized decision-making where agents optimize private objectives under incomplete information and imperfect public monitoring, in a non-cooperative setting. By shaping utilities-embedding shadow prices or Karush-Kuhn-Tucker(KKT)-aligned penalties-we make the stage game an exact-potential game whose unique equilibrium equals the (possibly constrained) social optimum. We characterize the Bayesian equilibrium as a stochastic variational inequality; strong monotonicity follows from a single-inflection compressed/stretched-exponential response combined with convex pricing. We give tracking bounds for damped-gradient and best-response-with-hysteresis updates under a noisy public index, and corresponding steady-state error. The framework accommodates discrete and continuous action sets and composes with slower discrete assignment. Deployable rules include: embed prices/penalties; publish a single public index; tune steps, damping, and dual rates for contraction. Computational experiments cover (i) a multi-tier supply chain and (ii) a non-cooperative agentic-AI compute market of bidding bots. Relative to price-only baselines, utility shaping attains near-centralized welfare, eliminates steady-state constraint/capacity violations when feasible, and accelerates convergence; with quantization, discrete equilibria track continuous ones within the mesh. The blueprint is portable to demand response, cloud/edge scheduling, and transportation pricing and biosecurity/agriculture. Overall, utility shaping plus a public index implements the constrained social optimum with stable equilibria under noise and drift-an operations-research-friendly alternative to heavy messaging or full mechanism design.

The rising importance of cryptocurrencies as financial assets pushed their applicability from an object of speculation closer to standard financial instruments such as loans. In this work, we initiate the study of secure protocols that enable fiat-denominated loans collateralized by cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. We provide limited-custodial protocols for such loans relying only on trusted arbitration and provide their game-theoretical analysis. We also highlight various interesting directions for future research.

Online bidding is a classic optimization problem, with several applications in online decision-making, the design of interruptible systems, and the analysis of approximation algorithms. In this work, we study online bidding under learning-augmented settings that incorporate stochasticity, in either the prediction oracle or the algorithm itself. In the first part, we study bidding under distributional predictions, and find Pareto-optimal algorithms that offer the best-possible tradeoff between the consistency and the robustness of the algorithm. In the second part, we study the power and limitations of randomized bidding algorithms, by presenting upper and lower bounds on the consistency/robustness tradeoffs. Previous works focused predominantly on oracles that do not leverage stochastic information on the quality of the prediction, and deterministic algorithms.

We are given a bipartite graph $G = \left( A \cup B, E \right)$. In the one-sided model, every $a \in A$ (often called agents) ranks its neighbours $z \in N_{a}$ strictly, and no $b \in B$ has any preference order over its neighbours $y \in N_{b}$, and vertices in $B$ abstain from casting their votes to matchings. In the two-sided model with one-sided ties, every $a \in A$ ranks its neighbours $z \in N_{a}$ strictly, and every $b \in B$ puts all of its neighbours into a single large tie, i.e., $b \in B$ prefers every $y \in N_{b}$ equally. In this two-sided model with one-sided ties, when two matchings compete in a majority election, $b \in B$ abstains from casting its vote for a matching when both the matchings saturate $b$ or both leave $b$ unsaturated; else $b$ prefers the matching where it is saturated. A popular matching $M$ is \emph{robust} if it remains popular among multiple instances. We have analysed the cases when a robust popular matching exists in the one-sided model where only one agent alters her preference order among the instances, and we have proposed a polynomial-time algorithm to decide if there exists a robust popular matching when instances differ only with respect to the preference orders of a single agent. We give a simple characterisation of popular matchings in the two-sided model with one-sided ties. We show that in the two-sided model with one-sided ties, if the input instances differ only with respect to the preference orders of a single agent, there is a polynomial-time algorithm to decide whether there exists a robust popular matching. We have been able to decide the stable matching problem in bipartite graphs $G = (A \cup B, E)$ where \textit{both} sides have weak preferences (ties allowed), with the restriction that every tie has length at most $k$.

Optimistic responsiveness -- the ability of a consensus protocol to operate at the speed of the network -- is widely used in consensus protocol design to optimize latency and throughput. However, blockchain applications incentivize validators to play timing games by strategically delaying their proposals, since increased block time correlates with greater rewards. Consequently, it may appear that responsiveness (even under optimistic conditions) is impossible in blockchain protocols. In this work, we develop a model of timing games in responsive consensus protocols and find a prisoner's dilemma structure, where cooperation (proposing promptly) is in the validators' best interest, but individual incentives encourage validators to delay proposals selfishly. To attain desirable equilibria, we introduce dynamic block rewards that decrease with round time to explicitly incentivize faster proposals. Delays are measured through a voting mechanism, where other validators vote on the current leader's round time. By carefully setting the protocol parameters, the voting mechanism allows validators to coordinate and reach the cooperative equilibrium, benefiting all through a higher rate-of-reward. Thus, instead of responsiveness being an unattainable property due to timing games, we show that responsiveness itself can promote faster block proposals. One consequence of moving from a static to dynamic block reward is that validator utilities become more sensitive to latency, worsening the gap between the best- and worst-connected validators. Our analysis shows, however, that this effect is minor in both theoretical latency models and simulations based on real-world networks.

Card games are widely used to study sequential decision-making under uncertainty, with real-world analogues in negotiation, finance, and cybersecurity. These games typically fall into three categories based on the flow of control: strictly sequential (players alternate single actions), deterministic response (some actions trigger a fixed outcome), and unbounded reciprocal response (alternating counterplays are permitted). A less-explored but strategically rich structure is the bounded one-sided response, where a player's action briefly transfers control to the opponent, who must satisfy a fixed condition through one or more moves before the turn resolves. We term games featuring this mechanism Bounded One-Sided Response Games (BORGs). We introduce a modified version of Monopoly Deal as a benchmark environment that isolates this dynamic, where a Rent action forces the opponent to choose payment assets. The gold-standard algorithm, Counterfactual Regret Minimization (CFR), converges on effective strategies without novel algorithmic extensions. A lightweight full-stack research platform unifies the environment, a parallelized CFR runtime, and a human-playable web interface. The trained CFR agent and source code are available at https://monopolydeal.ai.

We consider the problem of payoff division in indivisible coalitional games, where the value of the grand coalition is a natural number. This number represents a certain quantity of indivisible objects, such as parliamentary seats, kidney exchanges, or top features contributing to the outcome of a machine learning model. The goal of this paper is to propose a fair method for dividing these objects among players. To achieve this, we define the indivisible Shapley value and study its properties. We demonstrate our proposed technique using three case studies, in particular, we use it to identify key regions of an image in the context of an image classification task.

While participatory budgeting and budget-aggregation mechanisms require assumptions about how voters evaluate non-ideal budget allocations, little empirical evidence exists to validate which utility models accurately capture human preferences. We conducted structured polls with human participants to test whether real people's preferences conform to commonly assumed utility functions such as $\ell_1$, $\ell_2$ and Leontief. Our results suggest that these models may have limited explanatory power for actual behavior: most participants showed inconsistent patterns across different metric comparisons, and standard assumptions of project symmetry and sign symmetry -- core features of common distance-based metrics -- received little empirical support. However, we find encouraging evidence for more fundamental preference structures: a large majority of participants showed consistency with star-shaped preferences, as well as with peak-linear utility functions, where utility changes proportionally with distance from the ideal budget. These findings have important implications for designers of budget aggregation mechanisms. While theoretical results demonstrate impossibility results for standard distance metrics regarding truthfulness, Pareto-efficiency, and proportionality, our evidence suggests alternative modeling approaches may be warranted. More broadly, this work introduces a systematic methodology to empirically test the utility function assumptions that underpin budget aggregation theories, paving the way for more robust and realistic mechanism design.

Subtraction games have a rich literature as normal-play combinatorial games (e.g., Berlekamp, Conway, and Guy, 1982). Recently, the theory has been extended to zero-sum scoring play (Cohensius et al. 2019). Here, we take the approach of cumulative self-interest games, as introduced in a recent framework preprint by Larsson, Meir, and Zick. By adapting standard Pure Subgame Perfect Equilibria (PSPE) from classical game theory, players must declare and commit to acting either ``friendly'' or ``antagonistic'' in case of indifference. Whenever the subtraction set has size two, we establish a tie-breaking rule monotonicity: a friendly player can never benefit by a deterministic deviation to antagonistic play. This type of terminology is new to both ``economic'' and ``combinatorial'' games, but it becomes essential in the self-interest cumulative setting. The main result is an immediate consequence of the tie-breaking rule's monotonicity; in the case of two-action subtraction sets, two antagonistic players are never better off than two friendly players, i.e., their PSPE utilities are never greater. For larger subtraction sets, we conjecture that the main result continues to hold, while tie-breaking monotonicity may fail, and we provide empirical evidence in support of both statements.

Understanding how individual learning behavior and structural dynamics interact is essential to modeling emergent phenomena in socioeconomic networks. While bounded rationality and network adaptation have been widely studied, the role of heterogeneous learning rates both at the agent and network levels remains under explored. This paper introduces a dual-learning framework that integrates individualized learning rates for agents and a rewiring rate for the network, reflecting real-world cognitive diversity and structural adaptability. Using a simulation model based on the Prisoner's Dilemma and Quantal Response Equilibrium, we analyze how variations in these learning rates affect the emergence of large-scale network structures. Results show that lower and more homogeneously distributed learning rates promote scale-free networks, while higher or more heterogeneously distributed learning rates lead to the emergence of core-periphery topologies. Key topological metrics including scale-free exponents, Estrada heterogeneity, and assortativity reveal that both the speed and variability of learning critically shape system rationality and network architecture. This work provides a unified framework for examining how individual learnability and structural adaptability drive the formation of socioeconomic networks with diverse topologies, offering new insights into adaptive behavior, systemic organization, and resilience.

We study the effect of interim feedback policies in a dynamic all-pay auction where two players bid over two stages to win a common-value prize. We show that sequential equilibrium outcomes are characterized by Cheapest Signal Equilibria, wherein stage 1 bids are such that one player bids zero while the other chooses a cheapest bid consistent with some signal. Equilibrium payoffs for both players are always zero, and the sum of expected total bids equals the value of the prize. We conduct an experiment with four natural feedback policy treatments -- full, rank, and two cutoff policies -- and while the bidding behavior deviates from equilibrium, we fail to reject the hypothesis of no treatment effect on total bids. Further, stage 1 bids induce sunk costs and head starts, and we test for the resulting sunk cost and discouragement effects in stage 2 bidding.

Motivated by the question of how a principal can maximize its utility in repeated interactions with a learning agent, we study repeated games between an principal and an agent employing a mean-based learning algorithm. Prior work has shown that computing or even approximating the global Stackelberg value in similar settings can require an exponential number of rounds in the size of the agent's action space, making it computationally intractable. In contrast, we shift focus to the computation of local Stackelberg equilibria and introduce an algorithm that, within the smoothed analysis framework, constitutes a Polynomial Time Approximation Scheme (PTAS) for finding an epsilon-approximate local Stackelberg equilibrium. Notably, the algorithm's runtime is polynomial in the size of the agent's action space yet exponential in (1/epsilon) - a dependency we prove to be unavoidable.

Cooperative systems often remain in persistently suboptimal yet stable states. This paper explains such "rational stagnation" as an equilibrium sustained by a rational adversary whose utility follows the principle of potential loss, $u_{D} = U_{ideal} - U_{actual}$. Starting from the Prisoner's Dilemma, we show that the transformation $u_{i}' = a\,u_{i} + b\,u_{j}$ and the ratio of mutual recognition $w = b/a$ generate a fragile cooperation band $[w_{\min},\,w_{\max}]$ where both (C,C) and (D,D) are equilibria. Extending to a dynamic model with stochastic cooperative payoffs $R_{t}$ and intervention costs $(C_{c},\,C_{m})$, a Bellman-style analysis yields three strategic regimes: immediate destruction, rational stagnation, and intervention abandonment. The appendix further generalizes the utility to a reference-dependent nonlinear form and proves its stability under reference shifts, ensuring robustness of the framework. Applications to social-media algorithms and political trust illustrate how adversarial rationality can deliberately preserve fragility.

Privacy preservation has served as a key metric in designing Nash equilibrium (NE) computation algorithms. Although differential privacy (DP) has been widely employed for privacy guarantees, it does not exploit prior distributional knowledge of datasets and is ineffective in assessing information leakage for correlated datasets. To address these concerns, we establish a pointwise maximal leakage (PML) framework when computing NE in aggregative games. By incorporating prior knowledge of players' cost function datasets, we obtain a precise and computable upper bound of privacy leakage with PML guarantees. In the entire view, we show PML refines DP by offering a tighter privacy guarantee, enabling flexibility in designing NE computation. Also, in the individual view, we reveal that the lower bound of PML can exceed the upper bound of DP by constructing specific correlated datasets. The results emphasize that PML is a more proper privacy measure than DP since the latter fails to adequately capture privacy leakage in correlated datasets. Moreover, we conduct experiments with adversaries who attempt to infer players' private information to illustrate the effectiveness of our framework.

In the neon-lit nights of 2026, Johnson \& Johnson unveiled X. A pill, not larger than a snowflake, that promised a tempest of change. This miraculous drug didn't just allow people to cherry-pick memories to erase from their minds, it could also leave a reminder of this erasure in the minds of those who ingested it. Amidst the iconic red-bricked walls of Harvard Law, you, with books in one hand and dreams in the other, are on a mission. You are not just another student; you carry the hope of revolutionizing the archaic chambers of the legal world. Each night, as you pore over the tomes of law, you wonder what greatness society can achieve. On a cold evening, your phone buzzes. It's Dex, your old college friend turned underground dealer. His message is simple: ``Got X. Special price for you.'' The temptation swirls around you. Would you trade the lessons of the past for a clearer, yet incomplete future? The decision rests in your hands. We explore the game theoretic implications of a technology (such as TEEs) that allows agents to commit to forget information and discuss several applications.

Designing incentives for a multi-agent system to induce a desirable Nash equilibrium is both a crucial and challenging problem appearing in many decision-making domains, especially for a large number of agents $N$. Under the exchangeability assumption, we formalize this incentive design (ID) problem as a parameterized mean-field game (PMFG), aiming to reduce complexity via an infinite-population limit. We first show that when dynamics and rewards are Lipschitz, the finite-$N$ ID objective is approximated by the PMFG at rate $\mathscr{O}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}})$. Moreover, beyond the Lipschitz-continuous setting, we prove the same $\mathscr{O}(\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}})$ decay for the important special case of sequential auctions, despite discontinuities in dynamics, through a tailored auction-specific analysis. Built on our novel approximation results, we further introduce our Adjoint Mean-Field Incentive Design (AMID) algorithm, which uses explicit differentiation of iterated equilibrium operators to compute gradients efficiently. By uniting approximation bounds with optimization guarantees, AMID delivers a powerful, scalable algorithmic tool for many-agent (large $N$) ID. Across diverse auction settings, the proposed AMID method substantially increases revenue over first-price formats and outperforms existing benchmark methods.