PreprintCited by 5Topic ModelingDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningNatural Language Processing Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Injecting New Knowledge into Large Language Models via Supervised Fine-Tuning

Open access

Abstract

In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable performance in generating human-like text, proving to be a valuable asset across various applications. However, adapting these models to incorporate new, out-of-domain knowledge remains a challenge, particularly for facts and events that occur after the model's knowledge cutoff date. This paper investigates the effectiveness of Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) as a method for knowledge injection in LLMs, specifically focusing on the domain of recent sporting events. We compare different dataset generation strategies -- token-based and fact-based scaling -- to create training data that helps the model learn new information. Our experiments on GPT-4 demonstrate that while token-based scaling can lead to improvements in Q&A accuracy, it may not provide uniform coverage of new knowledge. Fact-based scaling, on the other hand, offers a more systematic approach to ensure even coverage across all facts. We present a novel dataset generation process that leads to more effective knowledge ingestion through SFT, and our results show considerable performance improvements in Q&A tasks related to out-of-domain knowledge. This study contributes to the understanding of domain adaptation for LLMs and highlights the potential of SFT in enhancing the factuality of LLM responses in specific knowledge domains.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2404.00213

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Current works on knowledge injection mainly focus on adding fact-based knowledge to LLMs.

    “Current works on knowledge injection mainly focus on adding fact-based knowledge to LLMs (Ovadia et al., 2023; Fu et al., 2023; Mecklenburg et al., 2024) and note that knowledge injection remains an open challenge (Fu et al., 2023).”

    From On the Way to LLM Personalization: Learning to Remember User Conversations (2024) · cites this paper as Mecklenburg et al., 2024

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mecklenburg, N., Lin, Y., Li, X., Holstein, D., Nunes, L., Malvar, S., Silva, B., Chandra, R., Aski, V., Yannam, P. K. R., Aktas, T., & Hendry, T.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4393758864
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
knowledge injection, supervised fine-tuning, large language models, dataset construction, question answering, domain adaptation, GPT-4

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