Optimal Liability Design for Medical AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.03114v1
• Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2026 04:33:10 GMT
• Title: Optimal Liability Design for Medical AI
• Abstract summary: This paper develops a principal-agent model in which a social planner designs medical liability to regulate a physician with private quality information.<n>We show that the optimal mechanism under asymmetric information is surprisingly simple: a uniform, one-size-fits-all liability level for all physician types.<n>We find that information asymmetry is a double-edged sword in the presence of AI, and greater transparency does not benefit all stakeholders equally.
• Score: 4.238757198284236
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into medical decision-making, yet its liability implications remain complex, particularly when physicians differ in diagnostic skills and their quality is unobservable. This paper develops a principal-agent model in which a social planner designs medical liability to regulate a physician with private quality information who chooses between a standard treatment, a personalized judgment-based treatment, or following an imperfect AI recommendation. Our analysis yields several novel insights. First, we show that the optimal mechanism under asymmetric information is surprisingly simple: a uniform, one-size-fits-all liability level for all physician types who deviate from the standard of care. Despite physician heterogeneity, this simple policy often achieves the full-information first-best outcome, particularly when standard care is reliable or AI is highly accurate. Second, the relationship between AI accuracy and optimal liability is non-monotonic. Contrary to common intuition, better AI does not always imply more relaxed liability. As AI accuracy increases, the optimal liability either decreases monotonically or follows an inverted-U pattern, depending on the uncertainty of the standard treatment. Third, asymmetric information does not universally reduce social welfare. Welfare loss arises only when standard care is unreliable and AI accuracy is too low; even then, its magnitude follows an inverted U-shape, initially increasing as AI complicates the regulatory problem, but declining as more accurate AI helps mitigate it. Finally, we find that information asymmetry is a double-edged sword in the presence of AI, and greater transparency does not benefit all stakeholders equally.

Related papers

• Algorithm Design and Physician Liability [0.22940141855172036]
  A U.S. liability rule holds healthcare providers responsible when their reliance on disparate algorithms contributes to erroneous clinical decisions.<n>We examine how such liability considerations reshape an AI firm's algorithm design decisions.<n>We find the liability rule can induce disparate use of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T21:08:34Z)
• Trustworthy AI Suffers from Invariance Conflicts and Causality is The Solution [80.98492754957466]
  Core trustworthy AI objectives, such as fairness, robustness, privacy, and explainability, are hard to achieve simultaneously.<n>This paper argues that causality is necessary to understand and balance trade-offs in performance and multiple objectives of trustworthy AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T14:26:28Z)
• The Imbalanced User-AI Relationships as an Ethical Failure of Front-End Design in Healthcare AI [0.0]
  We show how patients are rendered highly visible to AI systems through data inference, yet cannot understand, question or influence how they are represented.<n>We propose interventions for more balanced, participatory user-AI relationships in healthcare.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T17:15:57Z)
• Explainable AI as a Double-Edged Sword in Dermatology: The Impact on Clinicians versus The Public [46.86429592892395]
  explainable AI (XAI) addresses this by providing AI decision-making insight.<n>We present results from two large-scale experiments combining a fairness-based diagnosis AI model and different XAI explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-14T00:06:06Z)
• Scalable Oversight via Partitioned Human Supervision [47.001801756596926]
  Even the best human experts are knowledgeable only in a single narrow area.<n>Humans may provide a weak signal, i.e., a complementary label indicating an option that is incorrect.<n>We propose a scalable oversight framework that enables us to evaluate frontier AI systems without the need to prepare the ground truth.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-26T02:42:03Z)
• Exploring the Impact of Explainable AI and Cognitive Capabilities on Users' Decisions [1.1049608786515839]
  Personality traits like the Need for Cognition (NFC) can lead to different decision-making outcomes among low and high NFC individuals.<n>We investigated how presenting AI information affects accuracy, reliance on AI, and cognitive load in a loan application scenario.<n>We found no significant differences between low and high NFC groups in accuracy or cognitive load, raising questions about the role of personality traits in AI-assisted decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T11:30:53Z)
• Engineering Trustworthy AI: A Developer Guide for Empirical Risk Minimization [53.80919781981027]
  Key requirements for trustworthy AI can be translated into design choices for the components of empirical risk minimization. We hope to provide actionable guidance for building AI systems that meet emerging standards for trustworthiness of AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T07:53:32Z)
• Explainable AI Enhances Glaucoma Referrals, Yet the Human-AI Team Still Falls Short of the AI Alone [6.740852152639975]
  We investigate how various AI explanations help providers distinguish between patients needing immediate or non-urgent specialist referrals. We built explainable AI algorithms to predict glaucoma surgery needs from routine eyecare data as a proxy for identifying high-risk patients. We incorporated intrinsic and post-hoc explainability and conducted an online study with optometrists to assess human-AI team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T03:01:20Z)
• Fairness in AI and Its Long-Term Implications on Society [68.8204255655161]
  We take a closer look at AI fairness and analyze how lack of AI fairness can lead to deepening of biases over time. We discuss how biased models can lead to more negative real-world outcomes for certain groups. If the issues persist, they could be reinforced by interactions with other risks and have severe implications on society in the form of social unrest.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-16T11:22:59Z)
• Private, fair and accurate: Training large-scale, privacy-preserving AI models in medical imaging [47.99192239793597]
  We evaluated the effect of privacy-preserving training of AI models regarding accuracy and fairness compared to non-private training. Our study shows that -- under the challenging realistic circumstances of a real-life clinical dataset -- the privacy-preserving training of diagnostic deep learning models is possible with excellent diagnostic accuracy and fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-03T09:49:13Z)
• Explainable AI meets Healthcare: A Study on Heart Disease Dataset [0.0]
  The aim is to enlighten practitioners on the understandability and interpretability of explainable AI systems using a variety of techniques. Our paper contains examples based on the heart disease dataset and elucidates on how the explainability techniques should be preferred to create trustworthiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-11-06T05:18:43Z)
• Is the Most Accurate AI the Best Teammate? Optimizing AI for Teamwork [54.309495231017344]
  We argue that AI systems should be trained in a human-centered manner, directly optimized for team performance. We study this proposal for a specific type of human-AI teaming, where the human overseer chooses to either accept the AI recommendation or solve the task themselves. Our experiments with linear and non-linear models on real-world, high-stakes datasets show that the most accuracy AI may not lead to highest team performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-27T19:06:28Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.