PreprintCited by 6Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningTopic ModelingRecommender Systems and Techniques

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

HYDRA: Model Factorization Framework for Black-Box LLM Personalization

Open access
Zhuang, Yuchen, Sun, Haotian, Yu, Yue, Qiang, Rushi, Wang, Qifan, Zhang, Chao, Dai, Bo·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Personalization has emerged as a critical research area in modern intelligent systems, focusing on mining users' behavioral history and adapting to their preferences for delivering tailored experiences. Despite the remarkable few-shot capabilities exhibited by black-box large language models (LLMs), the inherent opacity of their model parameters presents significant challenges in aligning the generated output with individual expectations. Existing solutions have primarily focused on prompt design to incorporate user-specific profiles and behaviors; however, such approaches often struggle to generalize effectively due to their inability to capture shared knowledge among all users. To address these challenges, we propose HYDRA, a model factorization framework that captures both user-specific behavior patterns from historical data and shared general knowledge among all users to deliver personalized generation. In order to capture user-specific behavior patterns, we first train a reranker to prioritize the most useful information from top-retrieved relevant historical records. By combining the prioritized history with the corresponding query, we train an adapter to align the output with individual user-specific preferences, eliminating the reliance on access to inherent model parameters of black-box LLMs. Both the reranker and the adapter can be decomposed into a base model with multiple user-specific heads, resembling a hydra. The base model maintains shared knowledge across users, while the multiple personal heads capture user-specific preferences. Experimental results demonstrate that HYDRA outperforms existing state-of-the-art prompt-based methods by an average relative improvement of 9.01% across five diverse personalization tasks in the LaMP benchmark. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/night-chen/HYDRA.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2406.02888

Cites

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?

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zhuang, Y., Sun, H., Yu, Y., Qiang, R., Wang, Q., Zhang, C., & Dai, B.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
100783-100815
ISSN
1049-5258 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415796088
Cited by
6
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1
FWCI
1.73
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • neural information processing systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation (2008334, 2403240, 2144338, 2106961, CAREER)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
Keywords
large language models, personalized 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