Tabular Search LLM Editing Without Full Retraining

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing tabular search large language models require full retraining when new information is introduced, which is cumbersome and can lead to catastrophic forgetting or hallucinations, impacting operational performance.

Innovation Solution

Implement data pre-processing, first and second fine-tuning operations, and optimization of gradient descent parameters using transductive learning and contextual bandits to update the model without full retraining, minimizing downtime and reducing the risk of forgetting or hallucinations.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If full retraining is performed to incorporate new information, then the model can handle new data, but the process is cumbersome and leads to catastrophic forgetting or hallucinations

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveability to handle new dataVSAvoidrisk of catastrophic forgetting or hallucinations
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the training process into multiple fine-tuning operations rather than performing a single full retraining. The model is updated through incremental fine-tuning on new data while preserving previously learned knowledge, thus avoiding catastrophic forgetting while still adapting to new information.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies preliminary actions by performing data pre-processing and generating training data before fine-tuning. This includes creating synthetic training examples and preparing data in advance, which allows the model to be systematically updated without full retraining, maintaining reliability while improving adaptability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Adaptability or versatility

If full retraining is performed to incorporate new information, then the model can handle new data, but the process is time-consuming and reduces operational efficiency

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveability to incorporate new informationVSAvoidretraining time and downtime
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies partial action by performing selective fine-tuning on specific components or parameters of the model rather than complete retraining. This allows the model to incorporate new information efficiently with minimal downtime, reducing the loss of time while maintaining adaptability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The training process is segmented into multiple smaller fine-tuning operations that can be performed incrementally. This reduces the overall time required compared to full retraining, as each fine-tuning operation processes a subset of the data or focuses on specific model aspects.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

3Reliability

If multiple fine-tuning operations are applied to update the model, then the model maintains performance on existing data, but the process complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveperformance consistency on existing dataVSAvoidcomplexity of fine-tuning process
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent uses feedback mechanisms to monitor model performance across multiple fine-tuning operations. By evaluating the model at each stage and adjusting subsequent fine-tuning based on performance feedback, the system maintains consistency on existing data while managing the complexity of the multi-stage process.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The patent manages complexity by systematically changing parameters during fine-tuning operations, such as learning rates, batch sizes, or data sampling strategies. These controlled parameter changes allow multiple fine-tuning operations to be performed while maintaining performance consistency and managing process complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentUS20250322241A1Model editing of a tabular search large language model using disagreement over out of distribution samples via transductive learning and contextual bandits
Publication Date: 2025.10.16 DELL PROD LP
  • US20250322241A1 patent drawing
  • US20250322241A1 patent drawing
  • US20250322241A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A method for updating a tabular search large language model (LLM) includes performing data pre-processing on new data associated with the tabular dataset to obtain a set of sequences, applying a first fine-tuning operation on the tabular search LLM using the set of sequences, applying a second fine-tuning operation on the tabular search LLM using training data to obtain a set of final loss results and a set of updatable gradients, wherein the training data comprises at least the set of sentence predictions, applying an optimization function on the set of final loss results and the set of updatable gradients to obtain optimized gradient descent parameters, and applying the updated tabular search LLM to a new input associated with the new data to produce a new output.