Knowledge Graph Tuning: Real-time Large Language Model Personalization based on Human Feedback
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From HingeMem: Boundary Guided Long-Term Memory with Query Adaptive Retrieval for Scalable Dialogues (2026) · cites this paper as [40]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
From Human Memory to AI Memory: A Survey on Memory Mechanisms in the Era of LLMs
Wu, Y., Liang, S., Zhang, C., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Guo, H., Tang, R., & Liu, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.15965 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“Graph -based formats [46, 13, 61, 20] are designed to capture and represent relationships among entities, such as individuals and events.”
HingeMem: Boundary Guided Long-Term Memory with Query Adaptive Retrieval for Scalable Dialogues
Zhong, Y., Gao, Y., & Wang, H. (2026) · Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2026 · doi:10.1145/3774904.3792089 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Memory in the Age of AI Agents
Hu, Y., Liu, S., Yue, Y., Zhang, G., Liu, B., Zhu, F., Lin, J., Guo, H., Dou, S., Xi, Z., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.13564 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
On the Way to LLM Personalization: Learning to Remember User Conversations
Magister, L. C., Metcalf, K., Zhang, Y., & ter Hoeve, M. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2411.13405 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
“…(Chen et al., 2022) to incorporating external knowledge sources via RAG (Song et al., 2016; Fan et al., 2020; Lewis et al., 2020; Martino et al., 2023; Zhou et al., 2024; Sun et al., 2024) to finetuning adapters (Wang et al., 2021; Ovadia et al., 2023; Fu et al., 2023; Mecklenburg et al., 2024).”
- Authors
- Sun, J., Du, Z., & Chen, Y.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2405.19686
- OpenAlex
- W4399252017
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- 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