By Topic

Expert systems should be more accurate than human experts: evaluation procedures from human judgement and decision making

Sign In

Cookies must be enabled to login.After enabling cookies , please use refresh or reload or ctrl+f5 on the browser for the login options.

Formats Non-Member Member
$33 $13
Learn how you can qualify for the best price for this item!
Become an IEEE Member or Subscribe to
IEEE Xplore for exclusive pricing!
close button

puzzle piece

IEEE membership options for an individual and IEEE Xplore subscriptions for an organization offer the most affordable access to essential journal articles, conference papers, standards, eBooks, and eLearning courses.

Learn more about:

IEEE membership

IEEE Xplore subscriptions

1 Author(s)
K. Levi ; Honeywell's Syst. & Res. Center, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Two procedures for the evaluation of the performances of expert systems are illustrated: one procedure evaluates predictive accuracy; the other procedure is complementary in that it uncovers the factors that contribute to predictive accuracy. Using these procedures, it is argued that expert systems should be more accurate than human experts in two senses. One sense is that expert systems must be more accurate to be cost-effective. Previous research is reviewed and original results are presented which show that simple statistical models typically perform better than human experts for the task of combining evidence from a given set of information sources. The results also suggest the second sense in which expert systems should be more accurate than human experts. They reveal that expert systems should share factors that contribute to human accuracy, but not factors that detract from human accuracy. Thus the thesis is that one should both require and expect systems to be more accurate than humans

Published in:

IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics  (Volume:19 ,  Issue: 3 )