Effects of different human-in-the-loop approaches on human-AI co-design: A comparison between human-learning HITL approach and machine-learning HITL approach
Abstract
The speed at which the quantity of data is increasing stymies the deployment of some AI tools for design as the basis for training the tools is not stable. Also, selecting which data can be used as training data is a challenge. To address these issues, the concept of human-in-the-loop (HITL) approaches have been proposed. HITL includes human knowledge in the model-building processes to mitigate the high volume requirement of training data. Although how to apply AI in a design process and the effect of Generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT and Midjourney) in design processes has been explored, limited attention has been given to how different HITL approaches affect design performance. This study thus aimed to explore how different HITL approaches (Human-learning HITL approach and Machine-learning HITL approach) affect solutions of human-AI co-design. Fifteen participants were recruited to undertake two design tasks under the guidelines of Human-learning HITL and Machine-learning HITL approach respectively. The solutions from participants were assessed using four criteria (novelty, aesthetics, functionality, and feasibility). The results of the study indicated that the solution generated from Human-learning HITL approach is better compared with that of the Machine-learning HITL approach, especially in terms of aesthetics and functionality of the solution. The study supports the importance of expressing human insights through prompts on improving human-AI co-design solutions comp…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Machine learning approaches were more appropriate for tasks that require adapting to user preferences.
“On the other hand, machine learning approaches, in which humans provide training data for the artificial intelligence, were more appropriate for tasks that require adapting to user preferences.”
From Human-in-the-Loop Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review of Concepts, Methods, and Applications (2026) · cites this paper as [109]
The comparison of different HITL approaches reveals trade-offs that inform design decisions.
“The comparison of different HITL approaches reveals trade-offs that inform design decisions.”
From Human-in-the-Loop Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review of Concepts, Methods, and Applications (2026) · cites this paper as [109]
The human learning approach was found to be more effective for tasks that require skill development.
“The human learning approach, in which the artificial intelligence plays a part in guiding human learning or instruction, was found to be more effective for tasks that require skill development.”
From Human-in-the-Loop Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review of Concepts, Methods, and Applications (2026) · cites this paper as [109]
Yin et al. found that each design philosophy has distinct strengths depending on task characteristics and user expertise.
“Yin et al. compared human-learning HITL approaches with machine-learning HITL approaches in co-design contexts, finding that each design philosophy has distinct strengths depending on task characteristics and user expertise [109].”
From Human-in-the-Loop Artificial Intelligence: A Systematic Review of Concepts, Methods, and Applications (2026) · cites this paper as [109]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
Cited by 3
- Authors
- Yin, Y., Wang, B., Zuo, H., & Childs, P.
- Affiliations
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Venue
- Volume 2A: 44th Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (CIE)
- Published
- 2024-08-25
- OpenAlex
- W4404315405
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 3.85
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design › Digital Media and Visual Art
- Keywords
- human-in-the-loop, human-AI co-design, generative AI in design, prompting, training data, design performance, novelty, aesthetics, functionality, feasibility, ChatGPT, Midjourney
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review