Hadi Hosseini

Hadi Hosseini

As generative AI becomes increasingly integrated into higher education, its frequent errors and hallucinations, often seen as limitations, offer a unique pedagogical opportunity. By framing AI as a ``learning companion'' whose imperfect outputs prompt analysis, evaluation, and reflection, we argue that instructors can engage students in the fundamental processes of higher-order thinking. This paper presents a design-oriented study in which an AI-integrated syllabus in a \textit{database design} course deliberately leverages AI's limitations to foster critical thinking and higher-order cognitive skills aligned with Bloom's taxonomy of learning. Using a mixed-methods approach, we examine how structured interaction with AI-generated errors supports metacognitive engagement, reinforces disciplinary rigor, and relates to students' perceived AI literacy and subject-matter competency.

Hadi Hosseini, Justin Payan, Rik Sengupta et al.

The classical house allocation problem involves assigning $n$ houses (or items) to $n$ agents according to their preferences. A key criterion in such problems is satisfying some fairness constraints such as envy-freeness. We consider a generalization of this problem wherein the agents are placed along the vertices of a graph (corresponding to a social network), and each agent can only experience envy towards its neighbors. Our goal is to minimize the aggregate envy among the agents as a natural fairness objective, i.e., the sum of all pairwise envy values over all edges in a social graph. When agents have identical and evenly-spaced valuations, our problem reduces to the well-studied problem of linear arrangements. For identical valuations with possibly uneven spacing, we show a number of deep and surprising ways in which our setting is a departure from this classical problem. More broadly, we contribute several structural and computational results for various classes of graphs, including NP-hardness results for disjoint unions of paths, cycles, stars, or cliques, and fixed-parameter tractable (and, in some cases, polynomial-time) algorithms for paths, cycles, stars, cliques, and their disjoint unions. Additionally, a conceptual contribution of our work is the formulation of a structural property for disconnected graphs that we call separability which results in efficient parameterized algorithms for finding optimal allocations.

Hadi Hosseini, Samarth Khanna

The growing interest in employing large language models (LLMs) for decision-making in social and economic contexts has raised questions about their potential to function as agents in these domains. A significant number of societal problems involve the distribution of resources, where fairness, along with economic efficiency, play a critical role in the desirability of outcomes. In this paper, we examine whether LLM responses adhere to fundamental fairness concepts such as equitability, envy-freeness, and Rawlsian maximin, and investigate their alignment with human preferences. We evaluate the performance of several LLMs, providing a comparative benchmark of their ability to reflect these measures. Our results demonstrate a lack of alignment between current LLM responses and human distributional preferences. Moreover, LLMs are unable to utilize money as a transferable resource to mitigate inequality. Nonetheless, we demonstrate a stark contrast when (some) LLMs are tasked with selecting from a predefined menu of options rather than generating one. In addition, we analyze the robustness of LLM responses to variations in semantic factors (e.g. intentions or personas) or non-semantic prompting changes (e.g. templates or orderings). Finally, we highlight potential strategies aimed at enhancing the alignment of LLM behavior with well-established fairness concepts.

Gonzalo Ballestero, Hadi Hosseini, Samarth Khanna et al.

AI agents increasingly operate in multi-agent environments where outcomes depend on coordination. We distinguish primary algorithmic monoculture -- baseline action similarity -- from strategic algorithmic monoculture, whereby agents adjust similarity in response to incentives. We implement a simple experimental design that cleanly separates these forces, and deploy it on human and large language model (LLM) subjects. LLMs exhibit high levels of baseline similarity (primary monoculture) and, like humans, they regulate it in response to coordination incentives (strategic monoculture). While LLMs coordinate extremely well on similar actions, they lag behind humans in sustaining heterogeneity when divergence is rewarded.

Hadi Hosseini

Fairness is one of the most desirable societal principles in collective decision-making. It has been extensively studied in the past decades for its axiomatic properties and has received substantial attention from the multiagent systems community in recent years for its theoretical and computational aspects in algorithmic decision-making. However, these studies are often not sufficiently rich to capture the intricacies of human perception of fairness in the ambivalent nature of the real-world problems. We argue that not only fair solutions should be deemed desirable by social planners (designers), but they should be governed by human and societal cognition, consider perceived outcomes based on human judgement, and be verifiable. We discuss how achieving this goal requires a broad transdisciplinary approach ranging from computing and AI to behavioral economics and human-AI interaction. In doing so, we identify shortcomings and long-term challenges of the current literature of fair division, describe recent efforts in addressing them, and more importantly, highlight a series of open research directions.

Hadi Hosseini, Samarth Khanna, Ronak Singh

The rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has driven progress in reasoning tasks -- from program synthesis to scientific hypothesis generation -- yet their ability to handle ranked preferences and structured algorithms in combinatorial domains remains underexplored. We study matching markets, a core framework behind applications like resource allocation and ride-sharing, which require reconciling individual ranked preferences to ensure stable outcomes. We evaluate several state-of-the-art models on a hierarchy of preference-based reasoning tasks -- ranging from stable-matching generation to instability detection, instability resolution, and fine-grained preference queries -- to systematically expose their logical and algorithmic limitations in handling ranked inputs. Surprisingly, even top-performing models with advanced reasoning struggle to resolve instability in large markets, often failing to identify blocking pairs or execute algorithms iteratively. We further show that parameter-efficient fine-tuning (LoRA) significantly improves performance in small markets, but fails to bring about a similar improvement on large instances, suggesting the need for more sophisticated strategies to improve LLMs' reasoning with larger-context inputs.

Hadi Hosseini, Duohan Zhang

Two-sided matching markets have demonstrated significant impact in many real-world applications, including school choice, medical residency placement, electric vehicle charging, ride sharing, and recommender systems. However, traditional models often assume that preferences are known, which is not always the case in modern markets, where preferences are unknown and must be learned. For example, a company may not know its preference over all job applicants a priori in online markets. Recent research has modeled matching markets as multi-armed bandit (MAB) problem and primarily focused on optimizing matching for one side of the market, while often resulting in a pessimal solution for the other side. In this paper, we adopt a welfarist approach for both sides of the market, focusing on two metrics: (1) Utilitarian welfare and (2) Rawlsian welfare, while maintaining market stability. For these metrics, we propose algorithms based on epoch Explore-Then-Commit (ETC) and analyze their regret bounds. Finally, we conduct simulated experiments to evaluate both welfare and market stability.

John P. Dickerson, Hadi Hosseini, Samarth Khanna et al.

The rapid integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) in high-stakes decision-making -- such as allocating scarce resources like donor organs -- raises critical questions about their alignment with human moral values. We systematically evaluate the behavior of several prominent LLMs against human preferences in kidney allocation scenarios and show that LLMs: i) exhibit stark deviations from human values in prioritizing various attributes, and ii) in contrast to humans, LLMs rarely express indecision, opting for deterministic decisions even when alternative indecision mechanisms (e.g., coin flipping) are provided. Nonetheless, we show that low-rank supervised fine-tuning with few samples is often effective in improving both decision consistency and calibrating indecision modeling. These findings illustrate the necessity of explicit alignment strategies for LLMs in moral/ethical domains.

Mahir Akgun, Hadi Hosseini

As Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies continue to evolve, the gap between academic AI education and real-world industry challenges remains an important area of investigation. This study provides preliminary insights into challenges AI professionals encounter in both academia and industry, based on semi-structured interviews with 14 AI experts - eight from industry and six from academia. We identify key challenges related to data quality and availability, model scalability, practical constraints, user behavior, and explainability. While both groups experience data and model adaptation difficulties, industry professionals more frequently highlight deployment constraints, resource limitations, and external dependencies, whereas academics emphasize theoretical adaptation and standardization issues. These exploratory findings suggest that AI curricula could better integrate real-world complexities, software engineering principles, and interdisciplinary learning, while recognizing the broader educational goals of building foundational and ethical reasoning skills.

Hadi Hosseini, Debmalya Mandal, Amrit Puhan

An important problem on social information sites is the recovery of ground truth from individual reports when the experts are in the minority. The wisdom of the crowd, i.e. the collective opinion of a group of individuals fails in such a scenario. However, the surprisingly popular (SP) algorithm~\cite{prelec2017solution} can recover the ground truth even when the experts are in the minority, by asking the individuals to report additional prediction reports--their beliefs about the reports of others. Several recent works have extended the surprisingly popular algorithm to an equivalent voting rule (SP-voting) to recover the ground truth ranking over a set of $m$ alternatives. However, we are yet to fully understand when SP-voting can recover the ground truth ranking, and if so, how many samples (votes and predictions) it needs. We answer this question by proposing two rank-order models and analyzing the sample complexity of SP-voting under these models. In particular, we propose concentric mixtures of Mallows and Plackett-Luce models with $G (\ge 2)$ groups. Our models generalize previously proposed concentric mixtures of Mallows models with $2$ groups, and we highlight the importance of $G > 2$ groups by identifying three distinct groups (expert, intermediate, and non-expert) from existing datasets. Next, we provide conditions on the parameters of the underlying models so that SP-voting can recover ground-truth rankings with high probability, and also derive sample complexities under the same. We complement the theoretical results by evaluating SP-voting on simulated and real datasets.

Hadi Hosseini, Debmalya Mandal, Nisarg Shah et al.

The wisdom of the crowd has long become the de facto approach for eliciting information from individuals or experts in order to predict the ground truth. However, classical democratic approaches for aggregating individual \emph{votes} only work when the opinion of the majority of the crowd is relatively accurate. A clever recent approach, \emph{surprisingly popular voting}, elicits additional information from the individuals, namely their \emph{prediction} of other individuals' votes, and provably recovers the ground truth even when experts are in minority. This approach works well when the goal is to pick the correct option from a small list, but when the goal is to recover a true ranking of the alternatives, a direct application of the approach requires eliciting too much information. We explore practical techniques for extending the surprisingly popular algorithm to ranked voting by partial votes and predictions and designing robust aggregation rules. We experimentally demonstrate that even a little prediction information helps surprisingly popular voting outperform classical approaches.

Hadi Hosseini, Andrew Searns

The maximin share (MMS) guarantee is a desirable fairness notion for allocating indivisible goods. While MMS allocations do not always exist, several approximation techniques have been developed to ensure that all agents receive a fraction of their maximin share. We focus on an alternative approximation notion, based on the population of agents, that seeks to guarantee MMS for a fraction of agents. We show that no optimal approximation algorithm can satisfy more than a constant number of agents, and discuss the existence and computation of MMS for all but one agent and its relation to approximate MMS guarantees. We then prove the existence of allocations that guarantee MMS for $\frac{2}{3}$ of agents, and devise a polynomial time algorithm that achieves this bound for up to nine agents. A key implication of our result is the existence of allocations that guarantee $\text{MMS}^{\lceil{3n/2}\rceil}$, i.e., the value that agents receive by partitioning the goods into $\lceil{\frac{3}{2}n}\rceil$ bundles, improving the best known guarantee of $\text{MMS}^{2n-2}$. Finally, we provide empirical experiments using synthetic data.

Hadi Hosseini, Vijay Menon, Nisarg Shah et al.

We study the classical problem of matching $n$ agents to $n$ objects, where the agents have ranked preferences over the objects. We focus on two popular desiderata from the matching literature: Pareto optimality and rank-maximality. Instead of asking the agents to report their complete preferences, our goal is to learn a desirable matching from partial preferences, specifically a matching that is necessarily Pareto optimal (NPO) or necessarily rank-maximal (NRM) under any completion of the partial preferences. We focus on the top-$k$ model in which agents reveal a prefix of their preference rankings. We design efficient algorithms to check if a given matching is NPO or NRM, and to check whether such a matching exists given top-$k$ partial preferences. We also study online algorithms for eliciting partial preferences adaptively, and prove bounds on their competitive ratio.

Angelina Brilliantova, Anton Pletenev, Liliya Doronina et al.

Artificial Intelligence techniques such as agent-based modeling and probabilistic reasoning have shown promise in modeling complex biological systems and testing ecological hypotheses through simulation. We develop an agent-based model of Arctic foxes from Medniy Island while utilizing Probabilistic Graphical Models to capture the conditional dependencies between the random variables. Such models provide valuable insights in analyzing factors behind catastrophic degradation of this population and in revealing evolutionary mechanisms of its persistence in high-density environment. Using empirical data from studies in Medniy Island, we create a realistic model of Arctic foxes as agents, and study their survival and population dynamics under a variety of conditions.

Hadi Hosseini, Kate Larson, Robin Cohen

One-sided matching mechanisms are fundamental for assigning a set of indivisible objects to a set of self-interested agents when monetary transfers are not allowed. Two widely-studied randomized mechanisms in multiagent settings are the Random Serial Dictatorship (RSD) and the Probabilistic Serial Rule (PS). Both mechanisms require only that agents specify ordinal preferences and have a number of desirable economic and computational properties. However, the induced outcomes of the mechanisms are often incomparable and thus there are challenges when it comes to deciding which mechanism to adopt in practice. In this paper, we first consider the space of general ordinal preferences and provide empirical results on the (in)comparability of RSD and PS. We analyze their respective economic properties under general and lexicographic preferences. We then instantiate utility functions with the goal of gaining insights on the manipulability, efficiency, and envyfreeness of the mechanisms under different risk-attitude models. Our results hold under various preference distribution models, which further confirm the broad use of RSD in most practical applications.

Hadi Hosseini, Kate Larson, Robin Cohen

For assignment problems where agents, specifying ordinal preferences, are allocated indivisible objects, two widely studied randomized mechanisms are the Random Serial Dictatorship (RSD) and Probabilistic Serial Rule (PS). These two mechanisms both have desirable economic and computational properties, but the outcomes they induce can be incomparable in many instances, thus creating challenges in deciding which mechanism to adopt in practice. In this paper we first look at the space of lexicographic preferences and show that, as opposed to the general preference domain, RSD satisfies envyfreeness. Moreover, we show that although under lexicographic preferences PS is strategyproof when the number of objects is less than or equal agents, it is strictly manipulable when there are more objects than agents. In the space of general preferences, we provide empirical results on the (in)comparability of RSD and PS, analyze economic properties, and provide further insights on the applicability of each mechanism in different application domains.

Hadi Hosseini, Jesse Hoey, Robin Cohen

This paper considers a novel approach to scalable multiagent resource allocation in dynamic settings. We propose an approximate solution in which each resource consumer is represented by an independent MDP-based agent that models expected utility using an average model of its expected access to resources given only limited information about all other agents. A global auction-based mechanism is proposed for allocations based on expected regret. We assume truthful bidding and a cooperative coordination mechanism, as we are considering healthcare scenarios. We illustrate the performance of our coordinated MDP approach against a Monte-Carlo based planning algorithm intended for large-scale applications, as well as other approaches suitable for allocating medical resources. The evaluations show that the global utility value across all consumer agents is closer to optimal when using our algorithms under certain time constraints, with low computational cost. As such, we offer a promising approach for addressing complex resource allocation problems that arise in healthcare settings.