arXiv subjects

Raman Ebrahimi

Publications and source records attributed to Raman Ebrahimi.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Strategic Opinion Manipulation in Multiplex Networks

Models of opinion dynamics on networks, provide a framework to study how a network of agents aggregates dispersed opinions into a consensus. However, existing models assume that agents truthfully report their opinions, and do not account for environments in which a platform aggregates agents' reports across multiple networks, and agents can strategically report different opinions on each. In this paper, we propose a model of strategic opinion manipulation on multiplex networks, in which a platform merges L network layers with attention weights, and each agent, holding a private opinion, chooses (potentially different) reports on each layer, at a layer-specific misreporting cost, so as to pull the merged consensus toward their own opinion. We show that this game has a unique Nash equilibrium in closed form, that the resulting consensus is the truthful consensus under a centrality tilted toward a manipulability index of each agent, and that the resulting distortion is the (centrality-weighted) covariance of agents' manipulability and opinions. We further show that agents' reports on every layer are more extreme than their opinions, so that the polarization observed by the platform overestimates the true polarization. Notably, we highlight that merging layers is a double-edged sword: as manipulability depends on the square of an agent's influence on each layer, spreading attention across layers dilutes manipulation, while heterogeneous misreporting costs across layers and shifts in agents' centralities can amplify it. Finally, we characterize the platform's optimal choice of attention weights, in closed form when the layers share a stationary distribution, and through an exact gradient and a marginal test otherwise. Together, our findings shed light on when aggregating opinions across networks is (not) robust to strategic manipulation, and point out potential interventions to alleviate it.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Visibility Design and Strategic Reasoning

Dashboards, feeds, and leaderboards determine whom agents believe they are playing against. We study how such information architectures shape strategic behavior, and how a designer who controls them can use visibility as a lever. We propose a behavioral model in which a transparency parameter governs how selectively agents are exposed to opponents of nearby reasoning depth, and embed it in a Cognitive Hierarchy environment, which provides a tractable language for tying agents' beliefs about the sophistication of others to what they see. We show that because the exposure operator is an exponential tilt of the type distribution, the effect of transparency on aggregate behavior has a closed form: the derivative of the aggregate action with respect to $p$ is proportional to the population-average variance of perceived sophistication. This identity signs the effect in games of strategic complements (opacity raises aggregate effort) and in coordination environments (opacity lowers the mean action), and an ordinal version holds for any response rule that is monotone in the belief. Notably, under a Poisson prior, opacity acts as a sophistication multiplier: every reasoner plays as if the population were $\mathrm{Poisson}(τ/p)$. We use this structure to characterize the disagreement-versus-level tradeoff faced by a coordination-minded designer, to identify the reasoning depths that respond most to visibility, and to show that opacity imposes a ``sophistication tax'' under which the deepest reasoners can lose to moderate ones. Simulations in which agents see only a noisy leaderboard of published actions reproduce both the reversal and the tax. Together, our findings highlight that who an agent sees, and not only how deeply it reasons, shapes strategic behavior, and point to visibility as a design lever.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

Strategic Classification Has a Missing Lever: Audit Risk

Strategic classification studies how a decision maker should choose a classifier when the agents being classified can adjust their features in response to it. In existing models, the classifier is the only instrument available to the decision maker, and therefore a feature that is predictive but easy to fake can only be down-weighted or discarded. However, in many settings the decision maker can also verify: lenders verify income, admissions offices check documents, and tax authorities audit returns. In this paper, we propose a model of strategic classification in which the firm jointly designs a linear classifier and an \emph{audit profile}, which assigns to each fakeable feature a probability of detection and a penalty when caught. We show that under linear costs, the classifier affects the audit problem only through the distribution of gaming rents it induces, so that the joint design problem decomposes into the choice of a score rule and an audit allocation problem. We use this decomposition to characterize the optimal audit allocation, to identify when the allocation problem is tractable and when it is NP-hard (namely, when agents can game through overlapping features under an inspection cap), and to bound the regret of a firm that has to learn the rents by auditing. We further show that audit intensity is a quantity to be tuned rather than maximized: welfare is single-peaked in it, and a firm and a social planner disagree on the mix of detection and penalty that delivers a given level of deterrence. Notably, two populations with identical costs and causal structure can game in one domain and improve in the other, a difference that a cost-only model cannot account for. Together, our findings highlight that whether a feature is ``gameable'' depends on the institution's verification policy as much as on the feature itself.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2026

The Architecture of Illusion: Network Opacity and Strategic Escalation

Standard models of bounded rationality typically assume agents either possess accurate knowledge of the population's reasoning abilities (Cognitive Hierarchy) or hold dogmatic, degenerate beliefs (Level-$k$). We introduce the ``Connected Minds'' model, which unifies these frameworks by integrating iterative reasoning with a parameterized network bias. We posit that agents do not observe the global population; rather, they observe a sample biased by their network position, governed by a locality parameter $p$ representing algorithmic ranking, social homophily, or information disclosure. We show that this parameter acts as a continuous bridge: the model collapses to the myopic Level-$k$ recursion as networks become opaque ($p \to 0$) and recovers the standard Cognitive Hierarchy model under full transparency ($p=1$). Theoretically, we establish that network opacity induces a \emph{Sophisticated Bias}, causing agents to systematically overestimate the cognitive depth of their opponents while preserving the log-concavity of belief distributions. This makes $p$ an actionable lever: a planner or platform can tune transparency, globally or by segment (a personalized $p_k$), to shape equilibrium behavior. From a mechanism design perspective, we derive the \emph{Escalation Principle}: in games of strategic complements, restricting information can maximize aggregate effort by trapping agents in echo chambers where they compete against hallucinated, high-sophistication peers. Conversely, we identify a \emph{Transparency Reversal} for coordination games, where maximizing network visibility is required to minimize variance and stabilize outcomes. Our results suggest that network topology functions as a cognitive zoom lens, determining whether agents behave as local imitators or global optimizers.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2025

Textual understanding boost in the WikiRace

The WikiRace game, where players navigate between Wikipedia articles using only hyperlinks, serves as a compelling benchmark for goal-directed search in complex information networks. This paper presents a systematic evaluation of navigation strategies for this task, comparing agents guided by graph-theoretic structure (betweenness centrality), semantic meaning (language model embeddings), and hybrid approaches. Through rigorous benchmarking on a large Wikipedia subgraph, we demonstrate that a purely greedy agent guided by the semantic similarity of article titles is overwhelmingly effective. This strategy, when combined with a simple loop-avoidance mechanism, achieved a perfect success rate and navigated the network with an efficiency an order of magnitude better than structural or hybrid methods. Our findings highlight the critical limitations of purely structural heuristics for goal-directed search and underscore the transformative potential of large language models to act as powerful, zero-shot semantic navigators in complex information spaces.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2025

Layers of a City: Network-Based Insights into San Diego's Transportation Ecosystem

Analyzing the structure and function of urban transportation networks is critical for enhancing mobility, equity, and resilience. This paper leverages network science to conduct a multi-modal analysis of San Diego's transportation system. We construct a multi-layer graph using data from OpenStreetMap (OSM) and the San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), representing driving, walking, and public transit layers. By integrating thousands of Points of Interest (POIs), we analyze network accessibility, structure, and resilience through centrality measures, community detection, and a proposed metric for walkability. Our analysis reveals a system defined by a stark core-periphery divide. We find that while the urban core is well-integrated, 30.3% of POIs are isolated from public transit within a walkable distance, indicating significant equity gaps in suburban and rural access. Centrality analysis highlights the driving network's over-reliance on critical freeways as bottlenecks, suggesting low network resilience, while confirming that San Diego is not a broadly walkable city. Furthermore, community detection demonstrates that transportation mode dictates the scale of mobility, producing compact, local clusters for walking and broad, regional clusters for driving. Collectively, this work provides a comprehensive framework for diagnosing urban mobility systems, offering quantitative insights that can inform targeted interventions to improve transportation equity and infrastructure resilience in San Diego.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2025

United We Fall: On the Nash Equilibria of Multiplex and Multilayer Network Games

Network games provide a framework to study strategic decision making processes that are governed by structured interdependencies among agents. However, existing models do not account for environments in which agents simultaneously interact over multiple networks, or when agents operate over multiple action dimensions. In this paper, we propose new models of multiplex network games to capture the different modalities of interactions among strategic agents, and multilayer network games to capture their interactions over multiple action dimensions. We explore how the properties of the constituent networks of a multiplex/multilayer network can undermine or support the existence, uniqueness, and stability of the game's Nash equilibria. Notably, we highlight that both the largest and smallest eigenvalues of the constituent networks (reflecting their connectivity and two-sidedness, respectively) are instrumental in determining the uniqueness of the multiplex/multilayer network game's equilibrium. Together, our findings shed light on the reasons for the fragility of equilibria when agents interact over networks of networks, and point out potential interventions to alleviate them.

cs.GT↗

arXiv2024

The Double-Edged Sword of Behavioral Responses in Strategic Classification: Theory and User Studies

When humans are subject to an algorithmic decision system, they can strategically adjust their behavior accordingly (``game'' the system). While a growing line of literature on strategic classification has used game-theoretic modeling to understand and mitigate such gaming, these existing works consider standard models of fully rational agents. In this paper, we propose a strategic classification model that considers behavioral biases in human responses to algorithms. We show how misperceptions of a classifier (specifically, of its feature weights) can lead to different types of discrepancies between biased and rational agents' responses, and identify when behavioral agents over- or under-invest in different features. We also show that strategic agents with behavioral biases can benefit or (perhaps, unexpectedly) harm the firm compared to fully rational strategic agents. We complement our analytical results with user studies, which support our hypothesis of behavioral biases in human responses to the algorithm. Together, our findings highlight the need to account for human (cognitive) biases when designing AI systems, and providing explanations of them, to strategic human in the loop.

cs.LG↗