From Human Corrections to Learned Segmentations: A Critical Mathematical Review of Information, Learning, and Human Effort

Abstract

When does a human correction become useful learning, and what establishes better segmentation at matched human effort? This critical narrative review follows feedback through its selection, learner update, and evaluation. It compares active learning, machine teaching, interactive segmentation, and sequential predictive evaluation using a common mathematical account of target information, predictive error, response predictability, and human work. An exact Bayesian update converts evaluation-label information into expected log-loss improvement; an excess-risk decomposition explains what an approximate learner can lose. Conditional information decompositions separate the roles of selected locations, labels, and displayed context. Empirical comparisons show why response protocols, update mechanisms, and effort denominators matter, distinguishing current-mask refinement from reusable learning and simulated interaction from human evidence. We identify what logs can reveal, what requires independent evaluation, and what remains model-dependent. The resulting research priorities are to test what selection reveals, whether using it improves assimilation, and whether the resulting interaction policy benefits segmentation at matched effort. These are distinct claims: predicting a teacher's responses need not identify human intentions or establish better learning. No new acquisition algorithm or empirical superiority is claimed.