PreprintCited by 4Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior

Knowledge Graph Tuning: Real-time Large Language Model Personalization based on Human Feedback

Open access
Sun, Jingwei, Du, Zhixu, Chen, Yiran·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in a range of natural language processing tasks. Once deployed, LLMs encounter users with personalized factual knowledge, and such personalized knowledge is consistently reflected through users' interactions with the LLMs. To enhance user experience, real-time model personalization is essential, allowing LLMs to adapt user-specific knowledge based on user feedback during human-LLM interactions. Existing methods mostly require back-propagation to finetune the model parameters, which incurs high computational and memory costs. In addition, these methods suffer from low interpretability, which will cause unforeseen impacts on model performance during long-term use, where the user's personalized knowledge is accumulated extensively.To address these challenges, we propose Knowledge Graph Tuning (KGT), a novel approach that leverages knowledge graphs (KGs) to personalize LLMs. KGT extracts personalized factual knowledge triples from users' queries and feedback and optimizes KGs without modifying the LLM parameters. Our method improves computational and memory efficiency by avoiding back-propagation and ensures interpretability by making the KG adjustments comprehensible to humans.Experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs, including GPT-2, Llama2, and Llama3, show that KGT significantly improves personalization performance while reducing latency and GPU memory costs. Ultimately, KGT offers a promising solution of effective, efficient, and interpretable real-time LLM personalization during user interactions with the LLMs.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2405.19686

Cites

Statistics

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

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?

  • KGT introduces a real-time personalization mechanism where user preferences and feedback are directly encoded as nodes and edges within a user-specific knowledge graph.

    “For instance, KGT (Sun et al., 2024) introduces a real-time personalization mechanism where user preferences and feedback are directly encoded as nodes and edges within a user-specific knowledge graph.”

    From Memory in the Age of AI Agents (2025) · cites this paper as Sun et al., 2024

  • Existing long-term memory methods typically follow two directions: continuously recording, summarizing, and updating dialogue histories as memory, or transforming conversations into structured graph-based memory using OpenIE.

    “These approaches typically follow two directions: (i) continuously recording, summarizing, and updating dialogue histories as memory [2, 23, 39, 44], or (ii) transforming conversations into structured graphbased memory using techniques such as OpenIE [19, 40, 57, 58].”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sun, J., Du, Z., & Chen, Y.
Affiliations
Duke University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4399252017
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
Keywords
knowledge graphs, human feedback, real-time personalization, parameter-free optimization, interpretability, GPU memory efficiency, latency reduction

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