Knowledge-Enhanced Large Language Models for Domain-Specific Intelligent Applications
Keywords:
large language models; knowledge graphs; retrieval-augmented generation; domain-specific AI; socio-technical systems; AI governance; robustness; fairness; deployment; assuranceAbstract
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
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Intelligent Engineering Systems

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.