mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Soliciting Human-in-the-Loop User Feedback for Interactive Machine Learning Reduces User Trust and Impressions of Model Accuracy

arXiv 2008.12735 ↗First posted 28 Aug 2020cs.HC cs.AI cs.LGcited by 19

On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Human values and AI feedback alignment

Abstract (arXiv)

Mixed-initiative systems allow users to interactively provide feedback to potentially improve system performance. Human feedback can correct model errors and update model parameters to dynamically adapt to changing data. Additionally, many users desire the ability to have a greater level of control and fix perceived flaws in systems they rely on. However, how the ability to provide feedback to autonomous systems influences user trust is a largely unexplored area of research. Our research investigates how the act of providing feedback can affect user understanding of an intelligent system and its accuracy. We present a controlled experiment using a simulated object detection system with image data to study the effects of interactive feedback collection on user impressions. The results show that providing human-in-the-loop feedback lowered both participants' trust in the system and their perception of system accuracy, regardless of whether the system accuracy improved in response to their feedback. These results highlight the importance of considering the effects of allowing end-user feedback on user trust when designing intelligent systems.

Key facts. Cited by 19 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Human values and AI feedback alignment, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 7 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Aug 2020.

Builds on

7 of 41 references.

References · 7

  1. 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,040
  2. 2018The Open Images Dataset V4: Unified image classification, object detection, and visual relationship detection at scalecited by 542
  3. 2020The Role of Domain Expertise in User Trust and the Impact of First Impressions with Intelligent Systemscited by 34
  4. 2020Explainable Active Learning (XAL): An Empirical Study of How Local Explanations Impact Annotator Experiencecited by 20
  5. 2018A Multidisciplinary Survey and Framework for Design and Evaluation of Explainable AI Systemscited by 16
  6. 2020Don't Explain without Verifying Veracity: An Evaluation of Explainable AI with Video Activity Recognitioncited by 11
  7. 2018"Why Should I Trust Interactive Learners?" Explaining Interactive Queries of Classifiers to Userscited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 4; 2022: 5; 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 5; 2026: 2.

19 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2021A Survey of Human-in-the-loop for Machine Learningcited by 214
  2. 2021Explanation-Based Human Debugging of NLP Models: A Surveycited by 53
  3. 2022Leveraging Explanations in Interactive Machine Learning: An Overviewcited by 52
  4. 2021Fits and Starts: Enterprise Use of AutoML and the Role of Humans in the Loopcited by 21
  5. 2024EXMOS: Explanatory Model Steering Through Multifaceted Explanations and Data Configurationscited by 14
  6. 2021Multi-Perspective Content Delivery Networks Security Framework Using Optimized Unsupervised Anomaly Detectioncited by 9
  7. 2022Perspectives on Incorporating Expert Feedback into Model Updatescited by 7
  8. 2022Interactive Machine Learning: A State of the Art Reviewcited by 6
  9. 2023Lessons Learned from EXMOS User Studies: A Technical Report Summarizing Key Takeaways from User Studies Conducted to Evaluate The EXMOS Platformcited by 4
  10. 2026Feedback by Design: Understanding and Overcoming User Feedback Barriers in Conversational Agentscited by 4
  11. 2025An Agile Method for Implementing Retrieval Augmented Generation Tools in Industrial SMEscited by 2
  12. 2025UpBench: A Dynamically Evolving Real-World Labor-Market Agentic Benchmark Framework Built for Human-Centric AIcited by 2
7 more
  1. 2022Enriching Artificial Intelligence Explanations with Knowledge Fragmentscited by 1
  2. 2022Trustworthy Human Computation: A Surveycited by 1
  3. 2023Improving the Accuracy of Beauty Product Recommendations by Assessing Face Illumination Qualitycited by 1
  4. 2025An Exploration of Default Images in Text-to-Image Generationcited by 1
  5. 2025Towards User-Centred Design of AI-Assisted Decision-Making in Law Enforcementcited by 0
  6. 2025Human Cognitive Biases in Explanation-Based Interaction: The Case of Within and Between Session Order Effectcited by 0
  7. 2026Human-in-the-Loop User Feedback Affects Perceived Accuracy and Trust, but Task Subjectivity Matterscited by 0

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Evaluating Trust in AI, Human, and Co-produced Feedback Among Undergraduate Students
  2. 2026Same Feedback, Different Source: How AI vs. Human Feedback Shapes Learner Engagement ↗
  3. 2026Same Feedback, Different Source: How AI vs. Human Feedback Attribution and Credibility Shape Learner Behavior in Computing Education ↗
  4. 2024Mapping out the Space of Human Feedback for Reinforcement Learning: A Conceptual Framework
  5. 2025Trust in Vision-Language Models: Insights from a Participatory User Workshop
  6. 2025Assessing Policy Updates: Toward Trust-Preserving Intelligent User Interfaces
  7. 2026Trust Me on This: A User Study of Trustworthiness for RAG Responses ↗
  8. 2026What Are You Doing? Effects of Intermediate Feedback from Agentic LLM In-Car Assistants During Multi-Step Processing