Source author record

Parinaz Naghizadeh

Parinaz Naghizadeh appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

11works
12topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

11 published item(s)

preprint2023arXiv

Adaptive Data Debiasing through Bounded Exploration

Biases in existing datasets used to train algorithmic decision rules can raise ethical and economic concerns due to the resulting disparate treatment of different groups. We propose an algorithm for sequentially debiasing such datasets through adaptive and bounded exploration in a classification problem with costly and censored feedback. Exploration in this context means that at times, and to a judiciously-chosen extent, the decision maker deviates from its (current) loss-minimizing rule, and instead accepts some individuals that would otherwise be rejected, so as to reduce statistical data biases. Our proposed algorithm includes parameters that can be used to balance between the ultimate goal of removing data biases -- which will in turn lead to more accurate and fair decisions, and the exploration risks incurred to achieve this goal. We analytically show that such exploration can help debias data in certain distributions. We further investigate how fairness criteria can work in conjunction with our data debiasing algorithm. We illustrate the performance of our algorithm using experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets.

preprint2020arXiv

BASCPS: How does behavioral decision making impact the security of cyber-physical systems?

We study the security of large-scale cyber-physical systems (CPS) consisting of multiple interdependent subsystems, each managed by a different defender. Defenders invest their security budgets with the goal of thwarting the spread of cyber attacks to their critical assets. We model the security investment decisions made by the defenders as a security game. While prior work has used security games to analyze such scenarios, we propose behavioral security games, in which defenders exhibit characteristics of human decision making that have been identified in behavioral economics as representing typical human cognitive biases. This is important as many of the critical security decisions in our target class of systems are made by humans. We provide empirical evidence for our behavioral model through a controlled subject experiment. We then show that behavioral decision making leads to a suboptimal pattern of resource allocation compared to non-behavioral decision making. We illustrate the effects of behavioral decision making using two representative real-world interdependent CPS. In particular, we identify the effects of the defenders' security budget availability and distribution, the degree of interdependency among defenders, and collaborative defense strategies, on the degree of suboptimality of security outcomes due to behavioral decision making. In this context, the adverse effects of behavioral decision making are most severe with moderate defense budgets. Moreover, the impact of behavioral suboptimal decision making is magnified as the degree of the interdependency between subnetworks belonging to different defenders increases. We also observe that selfish defense decisions together with behavioral decisions significantly increase security risk.

preprint2020arXiv

Behavioral and Game-Theoretic Security Investments in Interdependent Systems Modeled by Attack Graphs

We consider a system consisting of multiple interdependent assets, and a set of defenders, each responsible for securing a subset of the assets against an attacker. The interdependencies between the assets are captured by an attack graph, where an edge from one asset to another indicates that if the former asset is compromised, an attack can be launched on the latter asset. Each edge has an associated probability of successful attack, which can be reduced via security investments by the defenders. In such scenarios, we investigate the security investments that arise under certain features of human decision-making that have been identified in behavioral economics. In particular, humans have been shown to perceive probabilities in a nonlinear manner, typically overweighting low probabilities and underweighting high probabilities. We show that suboptimal investments can arise under such weighting in certain network topologies. We also show that pure strategy Nash equilibria exist in settings with multiple (behavioral) defenders, and study the inefficiency of the equilibrium investments by behavioral defenders compared to a centralized socially optimal solution.

preprint2020arXiv

Paid Prioritization with Content Competition

We study the effects of allowing paid prioritization arrangements in a market with content provider (CP) competition. We consider competing CPs who pay prioritization fees to a monopolistic ISP so as to offset the ISP's cost for investing in infrastructure to support fast lanes. Unlike prior works, our proposed model of users' content consumption accounts for multi-purchasing (i.e., users simultaneously subscribing to more than one CP). This model allows us to account for the "attention" received by each CP, and consequently to draw a contrast between how subscription-revenues and ad-revenues are impacted by paid prioritization. We show that there exist incentives for the ISP to build additional fast lanes subsidized by CPs with sufficiently high revenue (from either subscription fees or advertisements). We show that non-prioritized content providers need not lose users, yet may lose revenue from advertisements due to decreased attention from users. We further show that users will consume a wider variety of content in a prioritized regime, and that they can attain higher welfare provided that non-prioritized traffic is not throttled. We discuss some policy and practical implications of these findings and numerically validate them.

preprint2020arXiv

Using Private and Public Assessments in Security Information Sharing Agreements

Information sharing among organizations has been gaining attention as a method for improving cybersecurity. However, the associated disclosure costs act as deterrents for firms' voluntary cooperation. In this work, we take a game-theoretic approach to understanding firms' incentives in these agreements. We propose the design of inter-temporal incentives (i.e. conditioning future cooperation on past interactions). Specifically, we show that incentives for full cooperation can be designed if firms share their private assessments of other firms' disclosure decisions through a common communication platform. We further show that similar incentives can be designed based on outcomes of a public rating/assessment system.

preprint2019arXiv

Resilient Cyberphysical Systems and their Application Drivers: A Technology Roadmap

Cyberphysical systems (CPS) are ubiquitous in our personal and professional lives, and they promise to dramatically improve micro-communities (e.g., urban farms, hospitals), macro-communities (e.g., cities and metropolises), urban structures (e.g., smart homes and cars), and living structures (e.g., human bodies, synthetic genomes). The question that we address in this article pertains to designing these CPS systems to be resilient-from-the-ground-up, and through progressive learning, resilient-by-reaction. An optimally designed system is resilient to both unique attacks and recurrent attacks, the latter with a lower overhead. Overall, the notion of resilience can be thought of in the light of three main sources of lack of resilience, as follows: exogenous factors, such as natural variations and attack scenarios; mismatch between engineered designs and exogenous factors ranging from DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attacks or other cybersecurity nightmares, so called "black swan" events, disabling critical services of the municipal electrical grids and other connected infrastructures, data breaches, and network failures; and the fragility of engineered designs themselves encompassing bugs, human-computer interactions (HCI), and the overall complexity of real-world systems. In the paper, our focus is on design and deployment innovations that are broadly applicable across a range of CPS application areas.

preprint2016arXiv

Provision of Public Goods on Networks: On Existence, Uniqueness, and Centralities

We consider the provision of public goods on networks of strategic agents. We study different effort outcomes of these network games, namely, the Nash equilibria, Pareto efficient effort profiles, and semi-cooperative equilibria (effort profiles resulting from interactions among coalitions of agents). We identify necessary and sufficient conditions on the structure of the network for the uniqueness of the Nash equilibrium. We show that our finding unifies (and strengthens) existing results in the literature. We also identify conditions for the existence of Nash equilibria for the subclasses of games at the two extremes of our model, namely games of strategic complements and games of strategic substitutes. We provide a graph-theoretical interpretation of agents' efforts at the Nash equilibrium, as well as the Pareto efficient outcomes and semi-cooperative equilibria, by linking an agent's decision to her centrality in the interaction network. Using this connection, we separate the effects of incoming and outgoing edges on agents' efforts and uncover an alternating effect over walks of different length in the network.

preprint2015arXiv

A Tale of Two Mechanisms: Incentivizing Investments in Security Games

In a system of interdependent users, the security of an entity is affected not only by that user's investment in security measures, but also by the positive externality of the security decisions of (some of) the other users. The provision of security in such system is therefore modeled as a public good provision problem, and is referred to as a security game. In this paper, we compare two well-known incentive mechanisms in this context for incentivizing optimal security investments among users, namely the Pivotal and the Externality mechanisms. The taxes in a Pivotal mechanism are designed to ensure users' voluntary participation, while those in an Externality mechanism are devised to maintain a balanced budget. We first show the more general result that, due to the non-excludable nature of security, no mechanism can incentivize the socially optimal investment profile, while at the same time ensuring voluntary participation and maintaining a balanced budget for all instances of security games. To further illustrate, we apply the Pivotal and Externality mechanisms to the special case of weighted total effort interdependence models, and identify some of the effects of varying interdependency between users on the budget deficit in the Pivotal mechanism, as well as on the participation incentives in the Externality mechanism.

preprint2014arXiv

Closing the Price of Anarchy Gap in the Interdependent Security Game

The reliability and security of a user in an interconnected system depends on all users' collective effort in security. Consequently, investments in security technologies by strategic users is typically modeled as a public good problem, known as the Interdependent Security (IDS) game. The equilibria for such games are often inefficient, as selfish users free-ride on positive externalities of others' contributions. In this paper, we present a mechanism that implements the socially optimal equilibrium in an IDS game through a message exchange process, in which users submit proposals about the security investment and tax/price profiles of one another. This mechanism is different from existing solutions in that (1) it results in socially optimal levels of investment, closing the Price of Anarchy gap in the IDS game, (2) it is applicable to a general model of user interdependencies. We further consider the issue of individual rationality, often a trivial condition to satisfy in many resource allocation problems, and argue that with positive externality, the incentive to stay out and free-ride on others' investment can make individual rationality much harder to satisfy in designing a mechanism.

preprint2013arXiv

Incentives, Quality, and Risks: A Look Into the NSF Proposal Review Pilot

The National Science Foundation (NSF) will be experimenting with a new distributed approach to reviewing proposals, whereby a group of principal investigators (PIs) or proposers in a subfield act as reviewers for the proposals submitted by the same set of PIs. To encourage honesty, PIs' chances for getting funded are tied to the quality of their reviews (with respect to the reviews provided by the entire group), in addition to the quality of their proposals. Intuitively, this approach can more fairly distribute the review workload, discourage frivolous proposal submission, and encourage high quality reviews. On the other hand, this method has already raised concerns about the integrity of the process and the possibility of strategic manipulation. In this paper, we take a closer look at three specific issues in an attempt to gain a better understanding of the strengths and limitations of the new process beyond first impressions and anecdotal evidence. We start by considering the benefits and drawbacks of bundling the quality of PIs' reviews with the scientific merit of their proposals. We then consider the issue of collusion and favoritism. Finally, we examine whether the new process puts controversial proposals at a disadvantage. We conclude that some benefits of using review quality as an incentive mechanism may outweigh its drawbacks. On the other hand, even a coalition of two PIs can cause significant harm to the process, as the built-in incentives are not strong enough to deter collusion. While we also confirm the common suspicion that the process is skewed toward non-controversial proposals, the more unexpected finding is that among equally controversial proposals, those of lower quality get a leg up through this process. Thus the process not only favors non-controversial proposals, but in some sense, mediocrity. We also discuss possible ways to improve this review process.

preprint2013arXiv

Perceptions and Truth: A Mechanism Design Approach to Crowd-Sourcing Reputation

We consider a distributed multi-user system where individual entities possess observations or perceptions of one another, while the truth is only known to themselves, and they might have an interest in withholding or distorting the truth. We ask the question whether it is possible for the system as a whole to arrive at the correct perceptions or assessment of all users, referred to as their reputation, by encouraging or incentivizing the users to participate in a collective effort without violating private information and self-interest. Two specific applications, online shopping and network reputation, are provided to motivate our study and interpret the results. In this paper we investigate this problem using a mechanism design theoretic approach. We introduce a number of utility models representing users' strategic behavior, each consisting of one or both of a truth element and an image element, reflecting the user's desire to obtain an accurate view of the other and an inflated image of itself. For each model, we either design a mechanism that achieves the optimal performance (solution to the corresponding centralized problem), or present individually rational sub-optimal solutions. In the latter case, we demonstrate that even when the centralized solution is not achievable, by using a simple punish-reward mechanism, not only a user has the incentive to participate and provide information, but also that this information can improve the system performance.