arXiv Machine Learning By Holli Sargeant, Mackenzie Jorgensen, Arina Shah, Sam Goring, Adrian Weller, Umang Bhatt

Unequal Uncertainty: Rethinking Algorithmic Interventions for Mitigating Discrimination from AI

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

arXiv:2508. 07872v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Uncertainty in artificial intelligence (AI) predictions raises pressing legal and ethical questions for AI-assisted decision-making.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv AI
Aug 17

Algorithm Design and Physician Liability

arXiv:2608. 13618v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A single clinical algorithm can deliver unequal accuracy across patient groups, and concern about such disparity has grown as artificial intelligence (AI) spreads through clinical decision-making.

By Shujie Luan, Shubhranshu Singh, Tinglong Dai
arXiv AI
Aug 25

The Clinician's Veto: Navigating Trust, Liability, and Uncertainty in Autonomous AI Prescribing

The paper discusses how autonomous AI systems are moving from advisory to agentic roles in medication prescribing, citing recent U.S. legislation and a Utah pilot program. It argues that three architectural features—calibrated per‑prediction confidence, clear differentiation between epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty, and inferential transparency—are essential for safe autonomous prescribing. A survey of 136 U.S. clinicians shows they require a confidence‑based escalation mechanism, prefer different handling of uncertainty types, and will only accept liability when transparency allows informed decision‑making.

By Eileanor LaRocco, Sarah Tan, Adarsh Subbaswamy, Anne Andrews, Andrew Taylor, Cree Gaskin, Chirag Agarwal