Question

(Q3) A human and a machine inspector were evaluated in an experiment where each was presented a lot of 4000 parts. 2000 of the parts were good and 2000 were defective. Their performance is listed below. Human Machine If of correctly identified defective parts 1700 1800 # of good parts rejected 200 400 Which inspector (human or machine) is more sensitive in detecting defective parts? Show your computation. Also, calculate for each inspector and make a comment about those B.

Answer 1

Each inspector was presented a lot of 4000. Whose 2000 punts were good & 2000 parts were defective. Human no. of correctly identified defective parts no- of good pasts rejected. 1700 200 Machine. 1800 400 • probability of correctly identified defective panty by human inspector is = 1700 - 0.85 2000 Probability of Correctly identified defective paots by Machine inspector is = 1800 - o g 2000 . Machine inspector is more sensitive in detecting defective parts. Now, calculating & Lobert p - р (туре петок) = P(Not rejection of false defective porots). In human inspector case. Total defective parts - 2000 conectly identified defective parts - 1700 i Not-rejected defective parts - 8000-1700 - 300 u p (Not - rejection of defective parts) = 800/2000. 2015 B = 0215 Comment: Here 15% Posts were defective but not rejected. In Machine case. Total defective parts - 2000 correctly identified defective preots - 1800 Not -rejected defective parts - 2000-1800 = 200 R(Not a grejeltion of debective prots) - 200/2000 =0.) 201 comment: Here tote 10% parts were defective but not gejected.