Knowledge-Enhanced Large Language Models for Domain-Specific Intelligent Applications

Authors

  • Gamani Prabowo Department of Computer Science, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA. Author
  • Aileen Fitzsimons Department of Computer Science, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA. Author
  • Anastasia Clavin School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, USA. Author
  • Hayleigh A. Cummiskey Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno, Reno, NV, USA. Author

Keywords:

large language models; knowledge graphs; retrieval-augmented generation; domain-specific AI; socio-technical systems; AI governance; robustness; fairness; deployment; assurance

Abstract

Large language models have become general-purpose computational infrastructures, yet their deployment in high-stakes domains requires more than scale and fluency. Domain-specific intelligent applications must operate with reliable factual grounding, traceable reasoning, institutional policy compliance, and robust behavior under distributional shift. This paper examines knowledge-enhanced large language models as socio-technical systems rather than isolated model artifacts. It argues that domain specificity emerges through the articulation of model weights, external knowledge substrates, retrieval mechanisms, orchestration layers, human review, governance processes, and evaluation infrastructures. The paper first reviews conceptual foundations, contrasting parametric memory with retrieval-augmented and knowledge-graph-based approaches. It then analyzes architectural trade-offs involving latency, cost, updateability, transparency, and failure containment. Subsequent sections discuss knowledge acquisition and curation, tool-augmented reasoning, deployment and sustainability constraints, governance and fairness obligations, and cross-sector applications in medicine, law, engineering, and public administration. A central claim is that knowledge enhancement is not merely an accuracy intervention but an institutional design choice that redistributes authority among model providers, domain experts, data stewards, auditors, and end users. The paper also considers evaluation as an assurance practice, emphasizing adversarial testing, provenance, uncertainty communication, and continuous monitoring. It concludes that sustainable knowledge-enhanced systems require modular architectures, clear accountability pathways, and governance mechanisms that treat domain knowledge as a living infrastructure rather than a static training resource.

References

1. Bender, E. M., Gebru, T., McMillan-Major, A., & Shmitchell, S. (2021). On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 610–623. https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922

2. Bommasani, R., Hudson, D. A., Adeli, E., Altman, R., Arora, S., von Arx, S., ... Liang, P. (2021). On the opportunities and risks of foundation models. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.07258

3. Lewis, P., Perez, E., Piktus, A., Petroni, F., Karpukhin, V., Goyal, N., ... Kiela, D. (2020). Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33, 9459–9474.

4. Guu, K., Lee, K., Tung, Z., Pasupat, P., & Chang, M.-W. (2020). REALM: Retrieval-augmented language model pre-training. Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, 119, 3929–3938.

5. Karpukhin, V., Oğuz, B., Min, S., Lewis, P., Wu, L., Edunov, S., Chen, D., & Yih, W.-t. (2020). Dense passage retrieval for open-domain question answering. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 6769–6781. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.emnlp-main.550

6. Petroni, F., Rocktäschel, T., Riedel, S., Lewis, P., Bakhtin, A., Wu, Y., & Miller, A. H. (2019). Language models as knowledge bases? Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, 2463–2473. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1250

7. Ji, S., Pan, S., Cambria, E., Marttinen, P., & Yu, P. S. (2021). A survey on knowledge graphs: Representation, acquisition, and applications. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 33(2), 494–514. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3070843

8. Hogan, A., Blomqvist, E., Cochez, M., d'Amato, C., de Melo, G., Gutierrez, C., ... Zimmermann, A. (2021). Knowledge graphs. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(4), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447772

9. Pan, S., Luo, L., Wang, Y., Chen, C., Wang, J., & Wu, X. (2024). Unifying large language models and knowledge graphs: A roadmap. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 36(7), 3580–3599. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2024.3352100

10. Gao, Y., Xiong, Y., Gao, X., Jia, K., Pan, J., Bi, Y., ... Wang, H. (2023). Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10997

11. Mialon, G., Dessì, R., Lomeli, M., Nalmpantis, C., Pasunuru, R., Raileanu, R., ... Scialom, T. (2023). Augmented language models: A survey. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.07842

12. Weidinger, L., Uesato, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Huang, P.-S., Mellor, J., ... Gabriel, I. (2021). Ethical and social risks of harm from language models. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.04359

13. Mitchell, M., Wu, S., Zaldivar, A., Barnes, P., Vasserman, L., Hutchinson, B., ... Gebru, T. (2019). Model cards for model reporting. Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 220–229. https://doi.org/10.1145/3287560.3287596

14. Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé III, H., & Crawford, K. (2021). Datasheets for datasets. Communications of the ACM, 64(12), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3458723

15. Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., ... Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873

16. Amodei, D., Olah, C., Steinhardt, J., Christiano, P., Schulman, J., & Mané, D. (2016). Concrete problems in AI safety. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.06565

17. Coyle, D., & Weller, A. (2020). "Explaining" machine learning reveals policy challenges. Science, 368(6498), 1433–1434. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aba9644

18. Kaur, D., Uslu, S., Rittichier, K. J., & Durresi, A. (2022). Trustworthy artificial intelligence: A review. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(2), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3491209

19. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1

20. UNESCO. (2021). Recommendation on the ethics of artificial intelligence. UNESCO. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000381137

21. European Commission. (2021). Proposal for a regulation laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (Artificial Intelligence Act). European Commission. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52021PC0206

22. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial intelligence risk management framework (AI RMF 1.0). NIST. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1

23. Strubell, E., Ganesh, A., & McCallum, A. (2019). Energy and policy considerations for deep learning in NLP. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 3645–3650. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1355

24. Schwartz, R., Dodge, J., Smith, N. A., & Etzioni, O. (2020). Green AI. Communications of the ACM, 63(12), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/3381831

Downloads

Published

2026-04-28