Cited by 3Design Education and PracticeInnovative Human-Technology InteractionDigital Media and Visual Art

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

Yin, Yuan, Wang, Boheng, Zuo, Haoyu, Childs, Peter·2024·Volume 2A: 44th Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (CIE)

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

Crossref · 10.1115/detc2024-143295

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

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