CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 166Recommender Systems and TechniquesTopic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning

Data-efficient Fine-tuning for LLM-based Recommendation

Open access
Lin, Xinyu, Wang, Wenjie, Li, Yongqi, Yang, Shuo, Feng, Fuli, Wei, Yinwei, Chua, Tat-Seng·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2401.17197arXiv 2401.17197
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) for recommendation has recently garnered considerable attention, where fine-tuning plays a key role in LLMs' adaptation. However, the cost of fine-tuning LLMs on rapidly expanding recommendation data limits their practical application. To address this challenge, few-shot fine-tuning offers a promising approach to quickly adapt LLMs to new recommendation data. We propose the task of data pruning for efficient LLM-based recommendation, aimed at identifying representative samples tailored for LLMs' few-shot fine-tuning. While coreset selection is closely related to the proposed task, existing coreset selection methods often rely on suboptimal heuristic metrics or entail costly optimization on large-scale recommendation data. To tackle these issues, we introduce two objectives for the data pruning task in the context of LLM-based recommendation: 1) high accuracy aims to identify the influential samples that can lead to high overall performance; and 2) high efficiency underlines the low costs of the data pruning process. To pursue the two objectives, we propose a novel data pruning method based on two scores, i.e., influence score and effort score, to efficiently identify the influential samples. Particularly, the influence score is introduced to accurately estimate the influence of sample removal on the overall performance. To achieve low costs of the data pruning process, we use a small-sized surrogate model to replace LLMs to obtain the influence score. Considering the potential gap between the surrogate model and LLMs, we further propose an effort score to prioritize some hard samples specifically for LLMs. Empirical results on three real-world datasets validate the effectiveness of our proposed method. In particular, the proposed method uses only 2% samples to surpass the full data fine-tuning, reducing time costs by 97%.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2401.17197

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Even after fine-tuning, models still produce inconsistent results in low-data scenarios if no elaborate data-selection approach is followed.

    “Apart from that, even after fine-tuning the models still pro -duce inconsistent results in low-data scenarios if no elaborate data-selection approach is fol -lowed, highlighting the need for more adaptive learning model structures (Lin et al. 2024 ).”

    From A review of LLMs and their applications in the architecture, engineering and construction industry (2025) · cites this paper as Lin et al. 2024

    Section 3.3 says that poorly chosen samples can reduce performance in few-shot fine-tuning, and Section 4.3.1 reports lower performance when the coverage-enhanced selection strategy is replaced with greedy selection. The paper does not establish that results are generally inconsistent without an elaborate selection approach; Section 4.2 notes that random sampling can perform competitively. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 30 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Naman Agarwal, Brian Bullins, and Elad Hazan. 2016. Second-order stochastic optimization in linear time. stat 1050 (2016), 15.
  2. Keqin Bao, Jizhi Zhang, Wenjie Wang, Yang Zhang, Zhengyi Yang, Yancheng Luo, Fuli Feng, Xiangnaan He, and Qi Tian. 2023. A bi-step grounding paradigm for large language models in recommendation systems. arXiv:2308.08434. · arXiv
  3. C Coleman, C Yeh, S Mussmann, B Mirzasoleiman, P Bailis, P Liang, J Leskovec, and M Zaharia. 2020. Selection via Proxy: Efficient Data Selection for Deep Learning. In ICLR.
  4. Yunfan Gao, Tao Sheng, Youlin Xiang, Yun Xiong, Haofen Wang, and Jiawei Zhang. 2023. Chat-rec: Towards interactive and explainable llms-augmented recommender system. arXiv:2303.14524. · arXiv
  5. Muyang He, Shuo Yang, Tiejun Huang, and Bo Zhao. 2023. Large-scale Dataset Pruning with Dynamic Uncertainty. arXiv:2306.05175. · arXiv
  6. Xiangnan He, Kuan Deng, Xiang Wang, Yan Li, Yongdong Zhang, and Meng Wang. 2020. Lightgcn: Simplifying and powering graph convolution network for recommendation. In SIGIR. 639-648.
  7. Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv:2106.09685. · arXiv
  8. Krishnateja Killamsetty, Sivasubramanian Durga, Ganesh Ramakrishnan, Abir De, and Rishabh Iyer. 2021. Grad-match: Gradient matching based data subset selection for efficient deep model training. In ICML. PMLR, 5464-5474.
  9. Pang Wei Koh and Percy Liang. 2017. Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions. In ICML. PMLR, 1885-1894.
  10. Suraj Kothawade, Vishal Kaushal, Ganesh Ramakrishnan, Jeff Bilmes, and Rishabh Iyer. 2022. PRISM: A Unified Framework of Parameterized Submodular Information Measures for Targeted Data Subset Selection and Summarization. In AAAI.
  11. Xinyu Lin, Wenjie Wang, Yongqi Li, Fuli Feng, See-Kiong Ng, and Tat-Seng Chua. 2023. A multi-facet paradigm to bridge large language model and recommendation. arXiv:2310.06491. · arXiv
  12. Qijiong Liu, Nuo Chen, Tetsuya Sakai, and Xiao-Ming Wu. 2024. ONCE: Boosting Content-based Recommendation with Both Open-and Closed-source Large Language Models. In WSDM. ACM.
  13. Sichun Luo, Bowei He, Haohan Zhao, Yinya Huang, Aojun Zhou, Zongpeng Li, Yuanzhang Xiao, Mingjie Zhan, and Linqi Song. 2023. RecRanker: Instruction Tuning Large Language Model as Ranker for Top-k Recommendation. arXiv:2312.16018. · arXiv
  14. Zheqi Lv, Wenqiao Zhang, Zhengyu Chen, Shengyu Zhang, and Kun Kuang. 2024. Intelligent Model Update Strategy for Sequential Recommendation. In WWW. ACM.
  15. Zheqi Lv, Wenqiao Zhang, Shengyu Zhang, Kun Kuang, Feng Wang, Yongwei Wang, Zhengyu Chen, Tao Shen, Hongxia Yang, Beng Chin Ooi, et al. 2023. DUET: A Tuning-Free Device-Cloud Collaborative Parameters Generation Framework for Efficient Device Model Generalization. In WWW. ACM, 3077-3085.
  16. Yongxin Ni, Yu Cheng, Xiangyan Liu, Junchen Fu, Youhua Li, Xiangnan He, Yongfeng Zhang, and Fajie Yuan. 2023. A Content-Driven Micro-Video Recommendation Dataset at Scale. arXiv:2309.15379 (2023). · arXiv
  17. Shashank Rajput, Nikhil Mehta, Anima Singh, Raghunandan H Keshavan, Trung Vu, Lukasz Heldt, Lichan Hong, Yi Tay, Vinh Q Tran, Jonah Samost, et al. 2023. Recommender Systems with Generative Retrieval. In NeurIPS. Curran Associates, Inc.
  18. Jae-hun Shim, Kyeongbo Kong, and Suk-Ju Kang. 2021. Core-set sampling for efficient neural architecture search. arXiv:2107.06869. · arXiv
  19. Haoru Tan, Sitong Wu, Fei Du, Yukang Chen, Zhibin Wang, Fan Wang, and Xiaojuan Qi. 2023. Data Pruning via Moving-one-Sample-out. arXiv:2310.14664. · arXiv
  20. Mariya Toneva, Alessandro Sordoni, Remi Tachet des Combes, Adam Trischler, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey J Gordon. 2018. An empirical study of example forgetting during deep neural network learning. arXiv:1812.05159. · arXiv
  21. Kai Wei, Rishabh Iyer, and Jeff Bilmes. 2015. Submodularity in data subset selection and active learning. In ICML. PMLR, 1954-1963.
  22. Jiahao Wu, Wenqi Fan, Shengcai Liu, Qijiong Liu, Rui He, Qing Li, and Ke Tang. 2023. Dataset condensation for recommendation. arXiv:2310.01038. · arXiv
  23. Jiahao Wu, Qijiong Liu, Hengchang Hu, Wenqi Fan, Shengcai Liu, Qing Li, Xiao-Ming Wu, and Ke Tang. 2023. Leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to Empower Training-Free Dataset Condensation for Content-Based Recommendation. arXiv:2310.09874. · arXiv
  24. Honglei Zhang, He Liu, Haoxuan Li, and Yidong Li. 2024. TransFR: Transferable Federated Recommendation with Pre-trained Language Models. arXiv:2402.01124. · arXiv
  25. Honglei Zhang, Fangyuan Luo, Jun Wu, Xiangnan He, and Yidong Li. 2023. LightFR: Lightweight federated recommendation with privacy-preserving matrix factorization. TOIS 41, 4 (2023), 1-28.
  26. Bo Zhao, Konda Reddy Mopuri, and Hakan Bilen. 2020. Dataset Condensation with Gradient Matching. In ICLR.
  27. Haizhong Zheng, Rui Liu, Fan Lai, and Atul Prakash. 2022. Coverage-centric Coreset Selection for High Pruning Rates. In ICLR.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lin, X., Wang, W., Li, Y., Yang, S., Feng, F., Wei, Y., & Chua, T.-S.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Hong Kong Polytechnic University (HK)
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • University of Science and Technology of China (CN)
  • Monash University (AU)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
365-374
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2401.17197
arXiv
2401.17197
OpenAlex
W4400531852
Cited by
165
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 58 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 29
FWCI
62.69
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Keywords
LLM-based recommendation, few-shot fine-tuning, data pruning, coreset selection, representative sampling, data efficiency, large language models

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