Generative AI and Information Asymmetry: Impacts on Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2502.12969
• Title: Generative AI and Information Asymmetry: Impacts on Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard
• Authors: Yukun Zhang (Chinese University of Hong Kong), Tianyang Zhang (University of Bologna)
• Classification: cs.CY (Computers and Society)
• Publication Date: February 18, 2025
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.12969

Abstract

Information asymmetry often leads to adverse selection and moral hazard problems in economic markets, resulting in efficiency losses and welfare losses. Traditional solutions such as signaling and screening mechanisms are often insufficient. This study explores how generative artificial intelligence creates detailed information signals to help principals better understand the types of agents and monitor their behavior. By incorporating AI-generated signals into the principal-agent model, the research aims to reduce inefficiencies and improve contract design. Through theoretical analysis and simulation experiments, the study demonstrates that generative AI can effectively mitigate adverse selection and moral hazard, leading to more efficient market outcomes and increased social welfare.

Research Background and Motivation

Core Problem

The core problem this research addresses is: How can generative AI technology be leveraged to mitigate adverse selection and moral hazard problems caused by information asymmetry in economic markets?

Problem Significance

1. Economic Efficiency Loss: Information asymmetry is prevalent in financial, insurance, and labor markets, leading to market failures and inefficient resource allocation
2. Limitations of Traditional Methods: Existing signaling and screening mechanisms suffer from high costs, coarse granularity, and susceptibility to manipulation
3. Technological Opportunity: Breakthroughs in generative AI provide new technical pathways for addressing this classical economic problem

Limitations of Existing Approaches

• High Costs: Traditional third-party verification and monitoring mechanisms are expensive
• Coarse Information: Existing signals lack sufficient precision and fine-grained detail
• Susceptibility to Manipulation: Agents may distort information transmission through strategic behavior
• Static Nature: Lack of dynamic adaptation and real-time update capabilities

Research Motivation

Leveraging the dynamic information synthesis capabilities of generative AI (such as large language models and GANs) to extract high-precision signals from heterogeneous data, providing principals with more accurate tools for agent type inference and behavior monitoring.

Core Contributions

1. Theoretical Innovation: Proposes the first theoretical framework integrating generative AI signals into principal-agent models, extending traditional mechanism design theory
2. Mathematical Modeling: Constructs a dual AI signal model incorporating type signals and effort signals, with rigorous mathematical derivations and proofs
3. Multi-dimensional Analysis: Extends from single-period single-agent scenarios to multi-period multi-agent settings, analyzing dynamic contract design and information externalities
4. Market Structure Research: Systematically analyzes the differential impacts of AI signals in monopolistic, oligopolistic, and perfectly competitive markets
5. Empirical Verification: Validates theoretical predictions through agent-based simulations, demonstrating the practical effectiveness of AI signals

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Input: Agent's private type θ and effort level e, along with corresponding noisy signals Output: Optimized contract design w(s_θ, s_e) maximizing social welfare Constraints: Individual rationality (IR) and incentive compatibility (IC) constraints

Model Architecture

Single-Period Model

Utility functions for agent and principal respectively:

• Agent: $U_A = w - c(e,θ)$
• Principal: $U_P = V(e,θ) - w$

Generative AI provides two types of signals:

• Type signal: $s_θ = θ + ε_θ$, where $ε_θ \sim N(0,σ²_θ)$
• Effort signal: $s_e = e + ε_e$, where $ε_e \sim N(0,σ²_e)$

Bayesian Updating

The principal updates beliefs about the agent using Bayes' rule based on observed signals: $f(θ,e|s_θ,s_e) ∝ f(s_θ,s_e|θ,e)f(θ)f(e)$

Optimization Problem

The principal's optimization problem is: $\max_{w(·)} E_{θ,e,ε_θ,ε_e}[V(e,θ) - w(s_θ,s_e)]$

Subject to IR constraint: $E[w(s_θ,s_e) - c(e,θ)] ≥ U_0$ and IC constraint: $e^* = \arg\max_e E[w(s_θ,s_e) - c(e,θ)]$

Technical Innovations

1. Dual Signal Mechanism: Simultaneously models type and effort signals, enabling synchronized governance of adverse selection and moral hazard
2. Signal Precision Analysis: Parameterizes signal quality through $σ²_θ$ and $σ²_e$, establishing mathematical relationships between signal precision and market efficiency
3. Dynamic Extension: Extends single-period model to multi-period settings, analyzing reputation effects and inter-temporal incentives
4. Manipulation Prevention: Considers agent signal manipulation behavior and designs corresponding penalty mechanisms

Theoretical Results

Main Propositions

Proposition 2.1 (Reduction in Adverse Selection): As $σ²_θ$ decreases, the principal can design contracts that completely separate agent types, eliminating pooling equilibria in the limit and minimizing information rents of low-quality agents.

Proposition 2.2 (Reduction in Moral Hazard): As $σ²_e$ decreases, the principal can more accurately reward actual effort, reducing uncertainty faced by agents and approaching first-best outcomes.

Proposition 2.3 (Rent Extraction and Welfare Gains): When both $σ²_θ$ and $σ²_e$ approach zero, equilibrium information rents decrease and social welfare W approaches first-best results.

Multi-Period Analysis

Proposition 3.1 (Long-term Welfare Improvement): When T→∞ and $σ²_θ,σ²_e → 0$, dynamic contracts based on historical signals achieve dynamic first-best equilibrium.

Proposition 3.2 (Efficiency Gains in Multi-Agent Environments): As signal quality for each agent improves, the principal can implement multi-agent mechanisms with collectively aligned incentives.

Experimental Setup

Simulation Design

The research employs two sets of simulation experiments:

1. Single-Period Single-Agent Experiment: Simulates employment contract scenarios in online labor platforms
2. Multi-Period Multi-Agent Experiment: Conducts dynamic simulations under three market structures: competitive, oligopolistic, and monopolistic

Agent Types

• High-ability agents (approximately 30%)
• Medium-ability agents (approximately 20%)
• Low-ability agents (approximately 50%)

Evaluation Metrics

• Market Efficiency: Overall market welfare
• Adverse Selection Improvement: Changes in the ratio of high-ability to low-ability agents
• Moral Hazard Mitigation: Changes in agent effort levels
• Social Welfare: Sum of agent and principal utilities

Experimental Results

Single-Period Single-Agent Experiment Results

Effort Level Improvements:

• High-ability agents: Increased from 0.7525 to 0.9990 (improvement of approximately 0.2465)
• Medium-ability agents: Improvement of 0.0293
• Low-ability agents: Improvement of 0.0244
• All groups show t-test p-values of 0.0000, indicating statistically significant differences

Adverse Selection Improvement:

• Low-ability agent proportion decreased by 2.2%
• High-ability agent participation slightly decreased by 0.8%
• Overall quality structure improved

Social Welfare Increase: AI support significantly increased social welfare, with effort distribution becoming higher and more concentrated.

Multi-Period Multi-Agent Experiment Results

Performance varies significantly across different market structures:

Key Findings:

1. Competitive Markets: AI signals are most effective, with all agent types benefiting significantly
2. Oligopolistic Markets: Moderate effects with certain market structure constraints
3. Monopolistic Markets: Limited or even negative effects, potentially involving welfare distortions

Impact Analysis Across Different Market Structures

Monopolistic Markets

• Advantages: Can achieve near-perfect screening and first-best allocation
• Issues: Highly unequal surplus extraction, potentially requiring regulatory intervention

Oligopolistic Markets

• Competitive Dynamics: Trigger "information arms race," driving AI technology investment
• Policy Requirements: Need for data portability and fair competition policies

Perfectly Competitive Markets

• Efficiency Optimality: Achieves near first-best allocation with information rents approaching zero
• Innovation Incentives: May require R&D subsidies to maintain sustained innovation momentum

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. Technical Effectiveness: Generative AI signals can significantly reduce information asymmetry and mitigate adverse selection and moral hazard
2. Market Structure Sensitivity: AI signal effectiveness strongly depends on market structure, performing best in competitive markets
3. Dynamic Advantages: In multi-period settings, AI signals further enhance efficiency through reputation mechanisms and learning effects
4. Policy Implications: Requires differentiated regulatory frameworks tailored to different market structures

Limitations

1. Theoretical Assumptions: Assumptions of risk neutrality, independent noise, and non-manipulable signals may be overly restrictive
2. Manipulation Issues: While basic manipulation prevention is considered, deeper analysis of complex strategic behavior is lacking
3. Empirical Verification: Primarily based on simulation experiments, lacking validation with real market data
4. Ethical Considerations: Insufficient discussion of ethical issues such as data privacy and algorithmic bias

Future Directions

1. Theoretical Extensions: Relax risk neutrality assumptions and consider correlated noise structures
2. Empirical Research: Validate theoretical predictions using real market data
3. Ethical Framework: Establish ethical and regulatory frameworks for AI signal applications
4. Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Integrate perspectives from behavioral economics, computer science, and other disciplines

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Strong Theoretical Innovation: First systematic integration of generative AI into principal-agent theory, filling an important theoretical gap
2. Mathematical Rigor: Provides complete mathematical derivations and proofs with solid theoretical foundations
3. Comprehensive Analysis: Extends from single-period to multi-period, single-agent to multi-agent, and single market to multiple market structures
4. High Practical Value: Provides concrete implementation guidance for policymakers and industry practitioners

Weaknesses

1. Restrictive Assumptions: Some key assumptions (such as non-manipulable signals and independent noise) may be overly idealized
2. Insufficient Empirical Evidence: Primarily relies on simulation experiments, lacking real-world empirical evidence
3. Shallow Ethical Discussion: Insufficient depth in discussing ethical and social impacts of AI applications
4. Vague Technical Details: Lacks sufficient detail on how generative AI specifically produces high-quality signals

Impact and Significance

1. Academic Contribution: Opens new research directions in the intersection of information economics and AI economics
2. Policy Value: Provides theoretical basis for regulators to formulate AI application policies
3. Industry Relevance: Provides guidance framework for AI applications in fintech, insurtech, and related sectors
4. Reproducibility: Provides detailed mathematical models and simulation code, facilitating subsequent research verification and extension

Applicable Scenarios

1. Financial Markets: Credit assessment, risk pricing, investment advisory services
2. Insurance Industry: Underwriting decisions, claims review, product pricing
3. Labor Markets: Online platforms, human resource management, performance evaluation
4. Supply Chain Management: Supplier selection, contract design, quality control

References

The paper cites extensive relevant literature, primarily including:

• Akerlof (1970) - Lemon Market Theory
• Holmström (1979) - Moral Hazard Theory
• Athey & Imbens (2019) - Machine Learning Applications in Economics
• Brown et al. (2020) - Large Language Models
• Goodfellow et al. (2014) - Generative Adversarial Networks

Overall Assessment: This is a high-quality paper demonstrating outstanding performance in both theoretical innovation and practical value, making important contributions to cross-disciplinary research between AI and economics. While there remains room for improvement in empirical verification and ethical discussion, its pioneering theoretical framework and systematic analysis provide a solid foundation for subsequent research.