评估人工智能问答系统:确定专家评级需求的简单方法。

Dorian Zwanzig, Luca Kreibich, Uta Binder, Ute Dietrich
{"title":"评估人工智能问答系统:确定专家评级需求的简单方法。","authors":"Dorian Zwanzig, Luca Kreibich, Uta Binder, Ute Dietrich","doi":"10.3233/SHTI251532","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper introduces a simple approach for assessing whether laypeople or AI-based automations can adequately substitute for expert ratings in the evaluation of AI-powered Q&A systems It employs weighted Cohen's Kappa to assess inter-rater reliability, establishing an expert agreement benchmark and comparing this to individual alternative rater-expert agreements. By visualizing these results in an inter-rater reliability matrix, it is a transparent and structured way to determine the adequacy of non-expert raters. Our findings, based on a real project, suggest that laypeople or AI, in some cases, can match or exceed expert agreement, particularly when risk aversion is a factor. The approach can be adapted to different contexts and rating attributes.</p>","PeriodicalId":94357,"journal":{"name":"Studies in health technology and informatics","volume":"332 ","pages":"222-226"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating AI-Powered Q&A Systems: A Simple Approach to Determining the Need for Expert Ratings.\",\"authors\":\"Dorian Zwanzig, Luca Kreibich, Uta Binder, Ute Dietrich\",\"doi\":\"10.3233/SHTI251532\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This paper introduces a simple approach for assessing whether laypeople or AI-based automations can adequately substitute for expert ratings in the evaluation of AI-powered Q&A systems It employs weighted Cohen's Kappa to assess inter-rater reliability, establishing an expert agreement benchmark and comparing this to individual alternative rater-expert agreements. By visualizing these results in an inter-rater reliability matrix, it is a transparent and structured way to determine the adequacy of non-expert raters. Our findings, based on a real project, suggest that laypeople or AI, in some cases, can match or exceed expert agreement, particularly when risk aversion is a factor. The approach can be adapted to different contexts and rating attributes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in health technology and informatics\",\"volume\":\"332 \",\"pages\":\"222-226\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in health technology and informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI251532\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in health technology and informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI251532","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文介绍了一种简单的方法,用于评估外行人或基于人工智能的自动化是否可以在人工智能问答系统的评估中充分替代专家评级。它采用加权的Cohen's Kappa来评估评级者之间的可靠性,建立专家协议基准,并将其与单独的替代评级者-专家协议进行比较。通过将这些结果可视化到评估者之间的可靠性矩阵中,这是一种透明和结构化的方式来确定非专家评估者的充分性。我们基于一个真实项目的研究结果表明,在某些情况下,外行人或人工智能可以达到或超过专家的共识,特别是当风险规避是一个因素时。该方法可以适应不同的上下文和评级属性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating AI-Powered Q&A Systems: A Simple Approach to Determining the Need for Expert Ratings.

This paper introduces a simple approach for assessing whether laypeople or AI-based automations can adequately substitute for expert ratings in the evaluation of AI-powered Q&A systems It employs weighted Cohen's Kappa to assess inter-rater reliability, establishing an expert agreement benchmark and comparing this to individual alternative rater-expert agreements. By visualizing these results in an inter-rater reliability matrix, it is a transparent and structured way to determine the adequacy of non-expert raters. Our findings, based on a real project, suggest that laypeople or AI, in some cases, can match or exceed expert agreement, particularly when risk aversion is a factor. The approach can be adapted to different contexts and rating attributes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信