Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

What Drives Interactive Improvement from Feedback?

Summary

A study introduces a controlled student-teacher protocol to separate genuine feedback-driven improvement from gains due to repeated attempts or resampling. Across multiple benchmarks, self-feedback adds little beyond unguided self-refinement, while strong external teachers yield larger feedback-specific gains. The bottleneck is the student's ability to act on feedback.

SourcearXiv AIAuthor: Bart{\l}omiej Cupia{\l}, Jan {\L}ojek, Miko{\l}aj Garstecki, Szymon Pob{\l}ocki, Alicja Ziarko, Piotr Mi{\l}o\'s
What Drives Interactive Improvement from Feedback?
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 29 Jun 2026]

Title:What Drives Interactive Improvement from Feedback?

View a PDF of the paper titled What Drives Interactive Improvement from Feedback?, by Bart{\l}omiej Cupia{\l} and 5 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:We study when natural-language feedback produces improvement beyond the gains obtainable from repeated attempts alone. In multi-turn language agent setting, higher final accuracy can reflect useful feedback, but it can also arise from resampling, format correction, or additional test-time computation. To separate these effects, we introduce a controlled student-teacher protocol across Omni-MATH, Codeforces, BBEH Linguini, and ARC-AGI1, evaluating thirteen open-weight models in both student and teacher roles. We compare external feedback, self-feedback, and unguided self-refinement, while varying interaction history, task difficulty, and teacher access to privileged task information. Across settings, we find that multi-turn improvement is often not evidence of feedback use: self-generated feedback adds little beyond unguided self-refinement, whereas the strongest external teachers produce substantially larger feedback-specific gains, suggesting that useful feedback must provide guidance beyond generic retry. Dense student-teacher interaction matrices further show that interactive gains are driven more by the student's ability to use feedback than by the teacher's identity, although teacher choice remains important for a fixed student. These results suggest that feedback-based agents should be evaluated against repeated-attempt baselines, and that ability to act on feedback, not merely feedback availability, is a central bottleneck for interactive improvement. We release our controlled student-teacher evaluation framework at this https URL.

Comments: 9 pages, 7 figures, accepted to the RLxF Workshop at ICML 2026

Subjects:

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Cite as: arXiv:2606.30774 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2606.30774v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.30774

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Bartłomiej Cupiał [view email] [v1] Mon, 29 Jun 2026 18:06:36 UTC (1,801 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled What Drives Interactive Improvement from Feedback?, by Bart{\l}omiej Cupia{\l} and 5 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Current browse context:

cs.AI

new | recent | 2026-06

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

NASA ADS

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • Multi-turn improvement often reflects resampling or format correction, not effective feedback use.
  • Self-generated feedback provides minimal benefit over unguided self-refinement.
  • Strong external teachers produce significantly larger feedback-specific improvements.
  • Student's ability to utilize feedback is the primary bottleneck, not feedback availability.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.