PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 20, 2026Scientific Reports3 citationsOpen Access

Evaluating human–machine collaboration through a comparative analysis of experts, machine learning, and hybrid approaches in real estate valuation

View Full Paper
CKChristopher KmenGNGerhard NavratilMKMarkus Kattenbeck

Key Points

  • The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of human experts versus machine learning and hybrid methods in real estate price prediction.
  • Analyzed 21,736 real estate transactions from Vienna between 2018 and 2022.
  • Conducted experiments with 13 real estate experts under different valuation conditions.
  • Compared a traditional expert approach, a machine learning model, and a human-machine hybrid approach.
  • The machine learning model's accuracy was comparable to that of human experts.
  • The hybrid approach yielded the highest accuracy among all methods evaluated.
  • The use of machine learning significantly reduced the time needed for property valuation tasks.

Abstract

Abstract Accurate prediction of real estate prices remains a major challenge due to dynamic market conditions and the limitations of traditional valuation methods. Empirical studies that directly compare human experts, machine learning (ML) models, and hybrid approaches are rare. This study examines the predictive accuracy and efficiency of an XGBoost-based ML model, real estate experts, and a hybrid human–machine approach. A model was trained using 21,736 real estate transactions from Vienna (2018–2022). We then conducted an experimental procedure with 13 experts who evaluated newly built apartments sold in 2023 under three conditions: limited information, state-of-the-art expert methods, and collaboration between experts and ML model. The results show that the ML model achieves accuracy comparable to that of experts while significantly reducing the time required for the task. Within the hybrid approach, experts were able to achieve the highest accuracy in comparison to other methods. These results underscore the potential of human-ML collaboration.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Kmen et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/696f1ac19e64f732b51eefe1https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-34099-9
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Explainability does not mitigate the negative impact of incorrect AI advice in a personnel selection task2024 · 33 citations
  2. 2Selection Bias and Information Bias in Clinical Research2010 · 430 citations
  3. 3Detecting criticality in complex univariate time-series: A case study of the U.S. housing market crisis and other markets2022 · 3 citations
  4. 4The Interpretation of the "Tableau Economique"1960 · 11 citations
  5. 5From ‘automation’ to ‘autonomy’: the importance of trust repair in human–machine interaction2018 · 398 citations