---

name: feedback-loops description: | User feedback signals for RAG improvement: thumbs up/down, click-through, dwell time, explicit ratings. Implicit vs explicit signals, logging schema, feedback -> retraining pipelines (embedding fine-tuning with hard negatives, reranker fine-tuning from CTR), A/B testing RAG variants, Langfuse/LangSmith feedback APIs, feature stores for online learning.

USE WHEN: user mentions "user feedback", "thumbs up down", "CTR", "dwell time", "RAG evaluation feedback", "hard negatives", "reranker fine-tune", "A/B test RAG"

DO NOT USE FOR: offline eval metrics - use rag-evaluation; retriever algorithms - use advanced-retrieval; observability as such - use rag-observability allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Write, Edit

Feedback Loops for RAG

Signals

Explicit

Signal	Latency	Density	Reliability
Thumbs up/down	Immediate	Low (< 5% response rate)	Medium — noisy
Star rating (1-5)	Immediate	Very low	Higher, but biased toward extremes
Free-text feedback	Delayed	Lowest	Highest — but hard to parse
Per-citation accept/reject	Immediate	Low	High — directly actionable

Implicit

Signal	Captures	Caveat
Click-through on citation	Perceived relevance	Confirms source seen, not correctness
Dwell time on cited doc	Actual engagement	Needs session tracking
Copy text	High intent	Only partial
Regenerate click	Answer failure	Ambiguous — could be style not content
Next-turn "no, I meant..."	Answer failure	Parse NLU
Session abandonment	Frustration	Noisy — could be scheduled meeting
Scroll depth on answer	Read-through	Weak signal

Always log both. Implicit is dense; explicit is reliable. Combine.

Logging Schema

from pydantic import BaseModel
from datetime import datetime
from typing import Literal
from uuid import UUID

class RagEvent(BaseModel):
    event_id: UUID
    session_id: UUID
    user_id: str | None
    ts: datetime
    # Query context
    query: str
    rewritten_query: str | None
    classifier_path: str
    # Retrieval
    retriever_variant: str            # for A/B
    retrieved_ids: list[str]          # chunk IDs with rank
    retrieval_scores: list[float]
    # Generation
    answer_id: UUID
    model: str
    tokens_in: int
    tokens_out: int
    latency_ms: int
    # Citations emitted by answer
    cited_ids: list[str]

class FeedbackEvent(BaseModel):
    event_id: UUID
    answer_id: UUID                    # FK to RagEvent
    kind: Literal["thumbs", "rating", "citation_click", "citation_accept",
                  "citation_reject", "regenerate", "copy", "dwell", "free_text"]
    value: float | str | None          # 1/-1 for thumbs, 1-5 for rating, seconds for dwell
    chunk_id: str | None               # for citation-level feedback
    ts: datetime

Store in an append-only table (Postgres, BigQuery, Clickhouse). Join on answer_id downstream. Do not mutate rows — feedback events are facts.

Integration: Langfuse

from langfuse import Langfuse
from langfuse.decorators import observe, langfuse_context

langfuse = Langfuse()

@observe()
def answer(q: str, session_id: str):
    langfuse_context.update_current_trace(session_id=session_id, input=q)
    docs = retriever.invoke(q)
    langfuse_context.update_current_observation(
        metadata={"retrieved": [d.metadata["id"] for d in docs]}
    )
    ans = llm.invoke(build_prompt(q, docs))
    langfuse_context.update_current_trace(output=ans.content)
    return ans.content, langfuse_context.get_current_trace_id()

# Later, from the UI:
def record_thumbs(trace_id: str, value: int):
    langfuse.score(trace_id=trace_id, name="thumbs", value=value, data_type="BOOLEAN")

Integration: LangSmith

from langsmith import Client

client = Client()

def record_feedback(run_id: str, kind: str, value):
    client.create_feedback(run_id, key=kind, score=value if kind == "thumbs" else None,
                           value=str(value))

From Signal to Hard Negatives

Low-rated answers plus the chunks that were retrieved but not helpful are hard-negative training material for the embedding model.

import polars as pl

def build_hard_negatives(days: int = 30):
    df = pl.read_database("SELECT * FROM rag_events WHERE ts > now() - INTERVAL '30 days'")
    fb = pl.read_database("SELECT * FROM feedback_events WHERE kind='thumbs'")

    joined = df.join(fb, on="answer_id").filter(pl.col("value") == -1)
    # Explicit negative signal: query + retrieved chunks that did not lead to a useful answer.
    pairs = []
    for row in joined.iter_rows(named=True):
        for cid in row["retrieved_ids"][:5]:
            pairs.append({"query": row["query"], "negative_id": cid})
    return pairs

Pair hard negatives with user-accepted positive citations (citation_accept events) to build triples:

def triples():
    # (query, positive_chunk, negative_chunk)
    ...

Embedding Fine-Tuning (Sentence-Transformers)

from sentence_transformers import SentenceTransformer, InputExample, losses
from torch.utils.data import DataLoader

model = SentenceTransformer("BAAI/bge-base-en-v1.5")

examples = [
    InputExample(texts=[row["query"], row["positive_text"], row["negative_text"]])
    for row in triples_df.iter_rows(named=True)
]
loader = DataLoader(examples, shuffle=True, batch_size=16)
loss = losses.TripletLoss(model=model, triplet_margin=0.3)

model.fit([(loader, loss)], epochs=3, warmup_steps=100)
model.save("models/bge-ft-v2")

Re-embed the corpus with the fine-tuned model (blue-green index swap). Measure retrieval P@5 and MRR on a held-out eval set before promoting.

Reranker Fine-Tuning from CTR

The reranker ranks top-50. User clicks on citations at ranks 1-5 are a cheap pairwise preference signal.

# Pairwise: if user clicked chunk at rank 3 and not chunks at ranks 1-2,
# then (q, chunk_3) > (q, chunk_1) and > (q, chunk_2).

from sentence_transformers import CrossEncoder

clicks_pairs = build_pairwise_from_clicks(days=30, min_per_query=2)

ce = CrossEncoder("BAAI/bge-reranker-base", num_labels=1)
train = [InputExample(texts=[q, doc], label=float(label)) for q, doc, label in clicks_pairs]
ce.fit(train_dataloader=DataLoader(train, shuffle=True, batch_size=16),
       epochs=2, warmup_steps=200)
ce.save("models/reranker-ft-v2")

Online Learning via Feature Store

For low-latency reranking blends (boost chunks user interacted with in prior sessions), use a feature store.

# Feast example
from feast import FeatureStore

fs = FeatureStore(repo_path="feast_repo")

def enrich_with_user_features(user_id: str, candidate_ids: list[str]):
    feats = fs.get_online_features(
        features=["chunk:click_rate_7d", "user_chunk:last_seen_days"],
        entity_rows=[{"user_id": user_id, "chunk_id": cid} for cid in candidate_ids],
    ).to_dict()
    return feats

Blend online features into the reranker score (linear combination or LTR model).

A/B Testing RAG Variants

import hashlib

def assign_variant(session_id: str) -> str:
    h = int(hashlib.md5(session_id.encode()).hexdigest(), 16)
    return "B" if h % 100 < 50 else "A"

def retrieve(q: str, session_id: str):
    variant = assign_variant(session_id)
    if variant == "A":
        return retriever_v1.invoke(q)
    return retriever_v2.invoke(q)

Primary metric: thumbs-up rate per answer. Secondary: CTR on first citation, regenerate rate, dwell time. Guardrail: latency P95, cost per answer.

Sample size: for a thumbs-up rate of ~30% with detection of a 2 percentage point lift at 80% power, you need ~7k answers per variant. Run the experiment until both conditions hit the floor.

Counterfactual / Off-Policy Evaluation

Most feedback is collected only on the variant actually shown. To evaluate a new ranker offline without a live experiment:

# Inverse propensity scoring over logged clicks
# P(action | variant) used as the propensity weight.
def ips_estimator(logs, new_ranker):
    total = 0
    for row in logs:
        new_rank = new_ranker.rank(row.query, row.chunk_id)
        if new_rank == row.shown_rank:
            total += row.reward / row.propensity
    return total / len(logs)

Useful when a live A/B is too expensive. Validate with a small live test before full rollout.

Anti-Patterns

Anti-Pattern	Fix
Only thumbs up/down	Add implicit signals; explicit is too sparse
Conflating "regenerate" with negative feedback	Regenerate can mean "want different style"; look at next interaction
Fine-tuning on tiny data	Need >= 1-5k triples before fine-tuning helps
No eval set for fine-tuned model	Validate on a held-out labeled set; blue-green deploy
Click = correctness	Click confirms attention, not answer quality
Unweighted feedback	Power-user feedback should weight more (session length, role)
Ignoring latency/cost guardrails in A/B	A "better" variant that takes 2x latency loses users
Mutating logged rows	Feedback is append-only; immutable events
Using the same feedback events for training and eval	Split strictly by timestamp
No user identification	Per-user baseline drift kills signal

Production Checklist

• Every answer has a stable answer_id exposed to the client
• Append-only rag_events and feedback_events tables
• Thumbs, rating, citation-click, citation-accept, regenerate, dwell all logged
• Langfuse or LangSmith trace IDs joined to feedback
• Nightly job builds hard-negative triples
• Embedding fine-tuning scheduled (weekly/monthly) with blue-green index swap
• Reranker fine-tuning scheduled from click logs
• Feature store (Feast/Tecton) for online personalization signals
• A/B harness with hash-based assignment and guardrails
• Sample-size calculator applied before starting experiments
• Primary metric (thumbs-up) + secondary (CTR, regenerate, dwell) + guardrails (latency, cost)
• Eval set strictly time-separated from training set
• Privacy review: feedback logs are PII; apply retention policy