IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/spochp/978-3-032-19012-3_2.html

Evaluating Human Expertise and Generative AI (ChatGPT) Responses to Questions on Water Challenges: A Quantitative Study

Author

Listed:
  • Suha Khalil Assayed

    (The British University in Dubai, Faculty of Engineering and IT)

  • Almoayied Assayed

    (Royal Scientific Society, Water, Environment and Climate Change Centre)

Abstract

This chapter presents a quantitative study investigating the differences between human expert and one of the most popular generative model (ChatGPT-4) in answering different of water-related questions with focusing on multiple evaluation criteria including clarity, depth, and flow. However, the participants answered to the questions without knowing their source, they don’t know if the answers are from human expert or ChatGPT in order to ensure the unbiased comparison. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied to analyze whether perceived differences between experts and AI-generated responses were statistically significant. The findings reveal that there is a significant difference between the human experts and ChatGPT answers in all criteria, as the human experts provided more accurate and understandable answers. These results highlight the essential role of human expertise in technical domains where knowledge accuracy is critical. As well as the potential for generative AI to complement, rather than replace the human experts. In future work, a qualitative research should be conducted to explore more the participant perceptions and the impact of their background factors such as career position, age, education, and prior experience with water-related topics.

Suggested Citation

  • Suha Khalil Assayed & Almoayied Assayed, 2026. "Evaluating Human Expertise and Generative AI (ChatGPT) Responses to Questions on Water Challenges: A Quantitative Study," Springer Optimization and Its Applications,, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:spochp:978-3-032-19012-3_2
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-032-19012-3_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:spochp:978-3-032-19012-3_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.