Cognitively-Inspired Knowledge Memory Architecture

1. Introduction: Challenges and Opportunities for LLMs in High-Compliance Industries

1.1 Research Background and Real-World Demands

In recent years, Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved breakthrough progress in natural language understanding, symbolic reasoning, and code generation. From the evolution of GPT series models to the latest multimodal large models, these general artificial intelligence systems have demonstrated unprecedented language understanding and generation capabilities. However, when these powerful general capabilities need to be applied to high-compliance industries such as finance, healthcare, legal, energy, and nuclear industries, they face a series of unique and complex challenges.

First, knowledge currency issues have become a critical bottleneck. In the financial industry, regulatory policies may be updated quarterly; in the healthcare field, new treatment guidelines and drug information continuously emerge; in the legal domain, revisions to case law and statutory law occur frequently. Traditional parametric fine-tuning methods, while capable of encoding domain-specific knowledge into model parameters, require costly large-scale retraining when knowledge updates occur, which is not only expensive but also risks catastrophic forgetting.

Second, traceability and explainability requirements are crucial in high-compliance industries. Regulatory bodies require that every decision made by AI systems must have clear evidence support and be traceable to specific regulatory provisions, medical literature, or financial policies. Such requirements far exceed the capabilities of traditional machine learning models, necessitating systems that can provide detailed citations and reasoning paths while generating answers.

Third, terminology compliance presents another challenge that cannot be ignored. Different industries have strict professional terminology standards, and incorrect usage of terms may bring serious legal risks. For example, in healthcare, medication name errors could lead to medical accidents; in legal contexts, inaccurate clause citations might affect the validity of legal judgments.

Finally, the dilemma brought by foundation model upgrades adds insult to injury. As companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google continuously release more powerful foundation models, enterprises face a difficult choice: either continue using well-adapted older models, missing out on the capability improvements of new models, or upgrade to new models while bearing the enormous costs and risks of re-adaptation.

1.2 Systematic Limitations of Existing Solutions

To address the aforementioned challenges, academia and industry have proposed various solutions, but each approach has significant limitations.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is currently one of the most mainstream solutions. RAG enhances model knowledge coverage by dynamically retrieving external knowledge bases during the generation process. Lata (2025) points out in her research on enterprise RAG systems that while RAG can provide real-time external knowledge access, it faces serious problems in actual deployment including retrieval noise, latency accumulation, and context competition [1]. Particularly in high-concurrency enterprise environments, retrieval system latency often becomes the performance bottleneck for the entire application.a

Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) methods, such as LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation), attempt to achieve domain adaptation by updating only a small portion of model parameters. Zhong et al. (2023) found in their research on parametric knowledge transfer that while these methods can reduce training costs, they are prone to parameter interference and performance degradation in multi-task and multi-tenant scenarios [2]. More importantly, these methods still cannot handle rapid knowledge update requirements effectively.

Knowledge editing methods, such as ROME and MEMIT, attempt to update factual knowledge by directly modifying specific model parameters. While these methods excel at small-scale knowledge corrections, they are difficult to scale to large-scale industry knowledge management scenarios. Additionally, these methods lack systematic quality control and rollback mechanisms, making their reliability questionable in high-compliance environments.

Hybrid retrieval methods attempt to combine the advantages of structured knowledge graphs and unstructured text retrieval. Li (2024) proposed GraphRAG method that combines knowledge graphs with retrieval systems, improving structured knowledge representation to some extent [3]. However, this approach still faces challenges when handling complex multi-hop reasoning and cross-modal knowledge fusion.

1.3 Core Design Philosophy of DTDA Framework

Facing the limitations of existing solutions, we propose a fundamental design philosophy: completely decouple "general capability enhancement" from "industry knowledge governance" at runtime. This decoupling is not merely architectural separation, but a cognitive-level rethinking.

The core assumption of the DTDA framework is that general capabilities such as language understanding, reasoning, and generation should be enhanced through parametric methods in a stable manner, while industry-specific factual knowledge should be managed flexibly through non-parametric approaches. This separation enables the system to achieve rapid knowledge updates, precise traceability, and flexible revocation while maintaining the stability of general capabilities.

Specifically, the DTDA framework includes two parallel processing tracks: the parametric track focuses on directional capability enhancement, using methods like DoRA (Direction of Adaptation) to ensure orthogonality between different skill units, thereby avoiding multi-task interference; the non-parametric track handles different types and granularities of knowledge through a three-layer collaborative knowledge representation architecture, respectively processing rapid access to high-frequency knowledge, relational reasoning of structured knowledge, and dynamic retrieval of long-tail knowledge.

2. In-Depth Analysis of Current Research Trends

2.1 Technical Evolution of RAG Systems

Retrieval-augmented generation systems are undergoing a transformation from simple "retrieve-concatenate-generate" pipelines toward intelligent, adaptive knowledge fusion architectures. This evolution reflects the research community's deepening understanding of the complexity of knowledge integration.

In early RAG systems, retrieval and generation were viewed as two relatively independent modules. Systems first used traditional information retrieval methods (such as TF-IDF or BM25) to retrieve relevant documents from knowledge bases, then simply concatenated the retrieved documents to input contexts, and finally had language models perform generation. While this naive approach was simple to implement, it exposed numerous problems in practical applications.

Jiang et al. (2024) found in their research on context compression techniques that up to 60% of retrieved content in traditional RAG systems is redundant, which not only wastes valuable context windows but also increases inference costs [4]. To address this problem, researchers began exploring intelligent context compression methods by identifying and removing redundant information to improve retrieval efficiency.

Furthermore, the concept of stateful retrieval began gaining attention. Unlike traditional stateless retrieval, stateful retrieval systems can maintain a persistent evidence pool, recording historical query results and user feedback. Li et al. (2025) proposed a retrieval feedback memory enhancement method that demonstrates the potential of this approach by establishing a query-retrieval-feedback closed loop to continuously optimize retrieval quality [5].

Heterogeneous knowledge fusion has also become an important research direction. Jiang et al. (2025) proposed in their research on retrieval and structuring augmented generation that combining structured knowledge graphs with unstructured text retrieval can significantly improve performance on complex question-answering tasks [6]. This dual-channel fusion approach provides new insights for handling different types of knowledge representations.

However, as RAG system complexity increases, new problems have begun to emerge. Excessive retrieval may lead to knowledge conflicts and generation inconsistency issues. Zhang et al. (2023) pointed out in their research on hybrid RAG for real-time composition assistance that when retrieved information contains conflicts, models often struggle to make correct judgments, which is unacceptable in high-compliance scenarios [7].

2.2 Deep Trade-offs Between Parametric and Non-Parametric Knowledge

The trade-off between parametric and non-parametric knowledge is a core issue in current LLM research. This is not merely a technical choice, but involves deep understanding of the nature of knowledge and the boundaries of model capabilities.

Parametric knowledge refers to knowledge encoded into model parameters through the training process. This type of knowledge has advantages of fast access speed and high integration, but update costs are expensive and it is susceptible to catastrophic forgetting. Bhardwaj et al. (2023) found in their kNN-CM research that parametric knowledge performs excellently when handling high-frequency, common facts, but appears inadequate for long-tail and temporal knowledge [8].

Non-parametric knowledge maintains knowledge independence and updatability through external storage. While accessing this knowledge requires additional retrieval steps, its flexibility and traceability give it significant advantages in dynamic environments. Particularly in application scenarios requiring frequent knowledge updates, non-parametric methods can avoid the high costs of retraining.

More interestingly, recent research has begun exploring semi-parametric methods. These methods attempt to combine the advantages of both knowledge representations through selective memorization mechanisms to decide which knowledge should be internalized into parameters and which should remain externalized. This dynamic knowledge management strategy provides new possibilities for building more flexible and efficient knowledge systems [9].

Empirical studies show that different types of knowledge have different adaptabilities to parametric and non-parametric storage. Common-sense knowledge and linguistic patterns are more suitable for parametric storage because they are relatively stable and frequently used. Professional domain factual knowledge, temporal information, and personalized preferences are more suitable for non-parametric storage because they require frequent updates and have strong contextual dependencies.

2.3 Theoretical Breakthroughs in Attention Mechanisms as Memory Modules

Traditionally, attention mechanisms have been viewed as computational modules for selectively focusing on relevant information in input sequences. However, recent research has begun reinterpreting attention as an implementation of associative memory, providing theoretical foundations for building more intelligent knowledge integration systems.

From an information-theoretic perspective, attention mechanisms actually perform a form of soft content addressing operation. Query vectors can be viewed as encodings of retrieval intent, Key vectors represent memory item indices, and Value vectors contain actual memory content. This perspective provides a natural interface for directly integrating external knowledge into attention computation.

Wang et al. (2024) proposed the TransMem architecture in their video anomaly detection research, explicitly using Transformer blocks as learnable memory modules [10]. While this work primarily targets computer vision tasks, its core idea—using attention mechanisms as carriers of memory—provides important inspiration for knowledge integration in the NLP field.

This memorized attention mechanism has several significant advantages. First, it enables plug-and-play knowledge, where new knowledge items can be added to memory through simple key-value pairs without retraining the entire model. Second, it provides natural interpretability, where attention weights can directly reveal which memory items the model accessed. Finally, it supports dynamic knowledge updates and deletions, which is important for application scenarios requiring real-time knowledge base maintenance.

However, using attention mechanisms as memory modules also faces some challenges. Memory capacity limitations are a key issue—when the number of memory items becomes too large, the complexity of attention computation increases dramatically. Additionally, ensuring orthogonality between memory items to avoid mutual interference is another issue requiring in-depth research.

3. In-Depth Technical Analysis of DTDA Framework

3.1 Theoretical Foundation and Implementation Mechanism of Dual-Track Decoupling

The core innovation of the DTDA framework lies in proposing a runtime dual-track decoupling architecture. This architecture is not merely engineering separation, but reflects a profound understanding of the essence of knowledge processing and capability enhancement. From a cognitive science perspective, this dual-track design has striking similarities to the division of labor between working memory and long-term memory in human cognitive systems.

The design philosophy of the parametric track is "stable capability enhancement." This track is specifically responsible for improving general capabilities such as language understanding, logical reasoning, and expression generation, without carrying any specific factual knowledge. This design ensures that when industry knowledge changes, the model's foundational capabilities are not affected, thereby avoiding the capability degradation problems common in traditional fine-tuning methods.

In technical implementation, the parametric track uses the DoRA (Direction of Adaptation) method for parameter updates. Unlike traditional LoRA methods, DoRA decomposes weight matrices into magnitude and direction components, updating only the direction part. The mathematical representation of this method can be written as:

where ΔD is the directional update vector on the unit sphere. This update method ensures that the geometric structure of parameter changes is preserved, thereby improving the stability of multi-task learning.

To further avoid mutual interference between different skill units, the DTDA framework introduces orthogonal subspace constraints. Specifically, different skill units (such as terminology disambiguation, regulatory interpretation, process orchestration, etc.) are assigned to approximately orthogonal low-dimensional subspaces. This constraint is implemented by adding an orthogonal regularization term to the training objective:

This regularization term penalizes overlaps between directional updates of different skill units, ensuring they remain relatively independent in parameter space.

The design philosophy of the non-parametric track is "flexible knowledge governance." This track handles different types and granularities of industry knowledge through a three-layer collaborative architecture, with each layer optimally designed for specific knowledge characteristics.

3.2 Deep Design of Knowledge Memory Units (KMUs)

Knowledge Memory Units (KMUs) are one of the most core innovative components in the DTDA framework. The design of KMUs is inspired by working memory mechanisms in the human brain, aiming to directly embed frequently used key knowledge into the model's attention computation, thereby achieving zero-latency knowledge access.

The working principle of KMUs is based on the concept of Rectangular Attention. In traditional self-attention mechanisms, the attention matrix is square because queries, keys, and values all come from the same input sequence. In KMUs, we inject external knowledge items as additional key-value pairs into attention computation, forming a rectangular attention matrix.

The specific implementation process can be divided into the following steps:

First, knowledge entries are encoded through a stable sentence vector encoder. We choose multilingual, multi-domain adapted encoders (such as Sentence-BERT or E5) to ensure encoding stability and generalization. The encoding process can be represented as:

where z_i ∈ R^d_e is the vector representation of the i-th knowledge entry.

Next, knowledge vectors are mapped to attention space through two sets of trainable linear projection matrices:

Here, W_k ∈ R^{d_k × d_e} and W_v ∈ R^{d_v × d_e} are projection matrices for keys and values respectively, aligning knowledge vectors to the model's attention dimensions.

During attention computation, KMU key-value pairs are concatenated with contextual key-value pairs:

The final attention output is computed through standard scaled dot-product attention:

To prevent KMUs from "monopolizing" too much attention weight in early training, we introduce a temperature annealing gating mechanism. Each KMU cluster is equipped with a learnable gating parameter g ∈ [0,1], implementing hard sampling through Gumbel-Softmax. The gating temperature decreases linearly from initial 2.0 to 0.5, ensuring KMU activation becomes gradually sparse and targeted.

KMU training adopts a three-stage strategy. In the first stage (directional optimization), we freeze backbone model parameters and train only KMU projection matrices and gating parameters. The training objective includes task loss and evidence consistency regularization:

where L_cite ensures that generated answers can correctly cite relevant KMU entries.

The second stage (joint routing) opens training for router and fusion interfaces, learning collaboration with other knowledge layers. The third stage (cross-generation alignment) specifically handles knowledge transfer issues when foundation models are upgraded.

3.3 Deep Integration of Structured Knowledge Graphs

The structured knowledge graph layer is the core component responsible for handling complex relational reasoning in the DTDA framework. In high-compliance industries, many decisions rely on dependency relationships between clauses, mutual exclusion constraints, or hierarchical structures. Traditional text retrieval methods often struggle to capture these complex structured relationships, while structured knowledge graphs can provide precise relational modeling capabilities.

We employ Multi-relational Graph Neural Networks to learn representations of entities and relations in knowledge graphs. Specifically, we use R-GCN (Relational Graph Convolutional Networks) as the base architecture, with customized improvements for industry knowledge characteristics.

In R-GCN, entity representations are updated by aggregating information from their neighbor nodes:

where h_i^{(l)} is the hidden representation of entity i at layer l, N_i^r is the set of neighbors connected to entity i through relation r, c_{i,r} is the normalization constant, and W_r^{(l)} is the relation-specific weight matrix for relation r.

To handle sparsity issues in large-scale knowledge graphs, we introduce relation weight sharing mechanisms. Similar relation types are grouped together and share weight parameters within groups, thereby reducing model parameter count and improving training efficiency.

During query processing, we first perform constrained subgraph extraction. Given a query, we identify relevant entity nodes and then extract K-hop neighborhood subgraphs centered on these nodes. To control subgraph size, we use importance score-based pruning strategies, prioritizing high-confidence edges and nodes.

The extracted subgraph is then converted to textual descriptions through structural summarization algorithms. This process includes two steps: first, identifying key paths and key nodes in the subgraph; then, converting this structured information into natural language descriptions. The conversion process uses predefined templates and learned entity descriptions, ensuring generated summaries maintain both structural information completeness and good readability.

An important innovation in the structured knowledge graph layer is the introduction of dynamic constraint checking mechanisms. During generation, the system real-time checks whether generated content violates constraint relationships defined in the knowledge graph. For example, if two clauses are marked as mutually exclusive in the knowledge graph, the system will avoid citing both in the same answer.

3.4 Optimized Design of Hierarchical Retrieval Systems

The hierarchical retrieval system is the key component responsible for handling long-tail knowledge and temporal information in the DTDA framework. Unlike traditional flat retrieval methods, hierarchical retrieval achieves progressive retrieval from coarse-grained to fine-grained through constructing semantic pyramids, thereby significantly reducing latency while maintaining retrieval accuracy.

Semantic pyramid construction employs recursive clustering and summarization methods. At the bottom layer, we segment original documents into semantically coherent fragments, with each fragment length controlled within 512 tokens to ensure semantic completeness. Then, we use density-based clustering algorithms (such as HDBSCAN) to aggregate semantically similar fragments.

The clustering process uses multi-level similarity measures. Besides traditional cosine similarity, we also consider factors such as entity overlap, topic consistency, and temporal correlation. The similarity calculation formula is:

where α, β, γ are adjustable weight parameters optimized according to different application scenarios.

At each clustering level, we use a combination of extractive and generative methods to generate summaries. Extractive summarization identifies the most important sentences in clusters through TextRank algorithms, ensuring key information is not lost. Generative summarization uses specially trained summarization models to generate more coherent and concise overviews. Results from both summarization methods are weighted and fused to obtain final hierarchical summaries.

During query processing, hierarchical retrieval adopts a top-down search strategy. First, coarse-grained matching is performed at the top level to identify the most relevant major categories. Then, finer-grained searches are conducted within selected categories, drilling down layer by layer until reaching leaf nodes. This strategy has O(log N) time complexity, showing significant efficiency improvements compared to traditional linear search.

To further optimize retrieval performance, we introduce multi-level caching mechanisms. Popular upper-level summaries are cached in memory, while frequently accessed leaf fragments are managed through LRU strategies. This caching strategy can significantly reduce retrieval latency, particularly effective when handling repeated queries.

3.5 Intelligent Decision Mechanism of Adaptive Router

The adaptive router is the "brain" of the DTDA framework, responsible for dynamic trade-offs between quality and efficiency. The router design is based on reinforcement learning concepts, learning optimal knowledge access strategies through continuous exploration and exploitation.

Router input features include multi-dimensional information. Query complexity is assessed through syntactic analysis, entity recognition, and intent classification. Industry trigger statistics record the frequency and importance of professional terms and concepts appearing in queries. Language model perplexity and uncertainty reflect the model's understanding level of queries. Historical judge scores provide quality feedback from similar past queries.

The router's core is a multi-task neural network that simultaneously predicts importance weights and trigger thresholds for three knowledge sources. The network architecture adopts shared bottom representation and task-specific output head design:

Router training adopts multi-objective optimization strategies. Besides traditional task loss, we also introduce latency regularization and evidence cost regularization:

where L_latency penalizes high-latency routing decisions, L_cost controls computational costs of evidence acquisition, and L_quality optimizes output quality based on judge system feedback.

The router also has online learning capabilities. In actual deployment, the system collects user feedback and performance metrics, continuously optimizing routing strategies through incremental learning. This adaptive capability enables the system to dynamically adjust according to actual usage patterns and performance requirements.

4. In-Depth Comparative Analysis with Existing Research

4.1 Systematic Comparison of Technical Approaches

The DTDA framework differs fundamentally from existing mainstream methods in technical approaches. These differences are not only reflected in specific implementation details but also reflect different understandings of the essence of knowledge integration.

Traditional RAG methods, such as the enterprise RAG systems described by Lata (2025), adopt a linear pipeline of "external retrieval-context concatenation-unified generation" [1]. The advantage of this approach lies in simple implementation and convenient knowledge updates, but it has obvious limitations. First, retrieval quality directly affects final output, while retrieval systems often struggle with complex semantic queries and multi-hop reasoning. Second, context concatenation may lead to information redundancy and dilution of key information. Finally, the generation process lacks quality control over retrieved content, easily producing outputs based on incorrect or outdated information.

In contrast, the DTDA framework adopts a "multi-layer parallel-intelligent routing-quality closed loop" architecture. The core advantage of this architecture is its ability to dynamically select the most suitable knowledge access path based on query characteristics. For high-frequency core concepts, KMUs can provide zero-latency access; for complex relational reasoning, structured knowledge graphs can provide precise logical support; for long-tail and temporal information, hierarchical retrieval can provide efficient dynamic access.

Self-RAG and other adaptive retrieval methods attempt to optimize retrieval strategies by learning "when to retrieve" and "how to reflect." While these methods improve retrieval precision to some extent, they are still limited by the inherent latency and quality issues of external retrieval. The DTDA framework fundamentally avoids these problems by internalizing high-frequency knowledge.

KBLaM (Knowledge-Based Language Model) methods share similar technical approaches with DTDA framework's KMUs, both adopting methods of directly injecting knowledge into attention mechanisms. However, KBLaM mainly focuses on single types of knowledge representation, lacking differentiated processing for different knowledge characteristics. The DTDA framework can better handle knowledge diversity and complexity through three-layer knowledge architecture and adaptive routing.

RETRO (Retrieval-Enhanced Transformer) methods access large-scale external memory through cross-attention mechanisms, showing excellent performance in long-tail knowledge processing. However, RETRO has extremely high training and deployment costs and lacks flexible knowledge update mechanisms. The DTDA framework borrows RETRO's "evidence shortcut" concept but achieves similar effects through more lightweight implementation methods.

4.2 Objective Assessment of Innovation and Limitations

From an academic innovation perspective, the main contribution of the DTDA framework lies in proposing a systematic knowledge integration paradigm rather than breakthrough in individual technologies. While this systematic innovation has important engineering value, it has certain limitations in theoretical contributions.

The core innovation points of the DTDA framework can be summarized as follows:

First, the dual-track decoupling architecture provides a new knowledge management paradigm. By completely separating general capabilities from domain knowledge at runtime, the DTDA framework resolves the contradiction between capability degradation and knowledge updates in traditional methods. This design philosophy has important theoretical value, providing new insights for building more stable and maintainable AI systems.

Second, the three-layer knowledge collaboration mechanism achieves differentiated processing for different types of knowledge. KMUs handle high-frequency core knowledge, structured graphs handle relational reasoning, and hierarchical retrieval handles long-tail information. This layered design fully utilizes the advantages of different knowledge representation methods, achieving synergistic effects in overall performance.

Third, the cross-generation transfer scheme provides practical solutions for addressing foundation model upgrade issues. Through attention space alignment and orthogonal subspace minimal rotation, the DTDA framework can achieve cross-generation knowledge transfer at relatively low cost, which has important value for practical applications.

However, the DTDA framework also has obvious limitations:

From a theoretical perspective, the framework lacks deep mathematical theoretical support. While concepts from information theory and cognitive science are introduced, the connections between these theories and specific implementations are not tight enough. There is a lack of rigorous mathematical proofs for system convergence, stability, and optimality.

From a technical perspective, the framework's implementation complexity is high. The collaboration of three-layer knowledge architecture and adaptive routing mechanisms requires careful design and tuning, increasing system engineering complexity. Particularly in large-scale deployment, system stability and maintainability may face challenges.

From an experimental perspective, the framework requires extensive comparative experiments to verify its effectiveness. Due to the collaboration of multiple components, ablation study design and interpretation are quite complex. Additionally, performance in different application scenarios may vary significantly, requiring more comprehensive evaluation.

4.3 Competitive Advantages and Differentiated Positioning

Despite some limitations, the DTDA framework still has significant competitive advantages in specific application scenarios. These advantages are mainly reflected in the following aspects:

In terms of knowledge update flexibility, the DTDA framework achieves plug-and-play knowledge through non-parametric track design. New regulatory provisions, medical guidelines, or technical standards can be added to the system through simple database update operations without retraining models. This flexibility has important value in rapidly changing industry environments.

In terms of traceability and explainability, the DTDA framework's three-layer knowledge architecture naturally supports evidence chain construction. Each generated answer can be traced to specific knowledge sources, whether core concepts in KMUs, relational paths in knowledge graphs, or original documents in retrieval systems. This traceability meets regulatory requirements of high-compliance industries.

In terms of system stability, the dual-track decoupling design ensures that general capabilities are not affected by changes in domain knowledge. This stability is crucial for enterprise-level applications requiring long-term deployment.

In terms of cross-generation transfer, the DTDA framework provides a low-cost upgrade path. When new foundation models are released, enterprises can achieve knowledge transfer through relatively simple alignment processes without building domain adaptation systems from scratch.

However, these advantages also limit the applicable scope of the DTDA framework. The framework is most suitable for application scenarios with strict requirements for knowledge accuracy, traceability, and update frequency in high-compliance industries. For general conversational systems or creative generation tasks, the complexity of the DTDA framework may be unnecessary.

5. Challenge and Opportunity Analysis for Top-Tier Publication

5.1 Current Proposal Positioning in Academic Evaluation Systems

From the perspective of top-tier conference review standards, the DTDA framework faces a typical challenge: how to find balance between engineering innovation and academic contribution. The current proposal more reflects engineering system optimization thinking while lacking sufficient theoretical depth and academic novelty.

In terms of technical novelty, the core components of the DTDA framework are mostly based on combinations and improvements of existing technologies. KMUs are essentially extensions of KBLaM methods, structured knowledge graph usage has been explored in multiple studies, and hierarchical retrieval also has related precedents. While systematic integration of the three has certain innovation, this innovation is more reflected at the engineering level rather than algorithmic or theoretical levels.

In terms of theoretical contribution, the current proposal lacks deep mathematical analysis and theoretical insights. While concepts from information theory and cognitive science are introduced, the connections between these theoretical frameworks and specific implementations are not tight enough. There is a lack of rigorous analysis of system performance boundaries, convergence properties, and optimality conditions.

In terms of experimental validation, while a relatively complete evaluation protocol is proposed, the scientific rigor and persuasiveness of experimental design need strengthening. Particularly in controlling variables and causal inference, more rigorous experimental design is needed to support claimed advantages.

5.2 Review Preferences and Trend Analysis of Top-Tier Conferences

By analyzing accepted papers from top-tier conferences such as ACL, EMNLP, ICML, and NeurIPS in recent years, we can identify several obvious trends that provide important guidance for DTDA framework publication strategies.

First, theory-driven research is increasingly valued. Top-tier conferences are more inclined to accept papers that can provide new theoretical insights or mathematical frameworks. Even application-oriented research needs solid theoretical foundations as support. This means the DTDA framework needs significant strengthening at the theoretical level.

Second, interdisciplinary research methods have gained more recognition. Introducing theories from cognitive science, information theory, neuroscience, and other fields into NLP research has become an important research trend. The DTDA framework has natural advantages in this regard but needs deeper exploration of interdisciplinary theoretical connections.

Third, reproducibility and open science have received unprecedented attention. Top-tier conferences increasingly require papers to provide complete code, data, and experimental details to ensure research result reproducibility. The DTDA framework needs adequate preparation in this regard.

Fourth, social impact and ethical considerations have become important review criteria. Particularly for systems involving knowledge management and decision support, reviewers will focus on potential social impacts and ethical risks. The DTDA framework needs in-depth analysis and discussion in these areas.

5.3 Systematic Planning of Improvement Strategies

Based on the above analysis, we propose a systematic improvement strategy aimed at upgrading the DTDA framework from an engineering solution to a research contribution with important academic value.

5.3.1 Reconstruction and Deepening of Theoretical Foundations

First, we need to reconstruct the theoretical foundations of the DTDA framework, providing more rigorous mathematical analysis from cognitive science and information theory perspectives.

From a cognitive science perspective, we can understand the DTDA framework as computational modeling of Dual-Process Theory in human cognitive systems. Dual-Process Theory suggests that human cognition includes two relatively independent systems: System 1 responsible for fast, intuitive processing, and System 2 responsible for slow, rational reasoning. KMUs in the DTDA framework correspond to System 1, providing rapid knowledge access; while structured graphs and hierarchical retrieval correspond to System 2, providing deep reasoning support.

This correspondence is not merely analogical but can be characterized through specific mathematical models. We can define a cognitive load function C(q) to measure cognitive resources required for processing query q:

where C_fast(q) represents cognitive load of the fast processing path (KMUs), and C_slow(q) represents cognitive load of the slow processing path (graphs + retrieval). The system's goal is to minimize total cognitive load while ensuring output quality.

From an information theory perspective, we can analyze information capacity and compression efficiency of different knowledge representation methods. Let parametric knowledge capacity be C_p and non-parametric knowledge capacity be C_n, then total system knowledge capacity is:

where I(P;N) is mutual information between parametric and non-parametric knowledge. The system design goal is to maximize total knowledge capacity while satisfying latency and accuracy constraints.

5.3.2 Scientific Improvement of Experimental Design

Second, we need to design more scientific and rigorous experiments to verify DTDA framework effectiveness. Experimental design should follow causal inference principles, establishing causal relationships through controlled variables and randomization.

We propose a three-level experimental design framework:

The first level is theoretical validation experiments, aimed at verifying the effectiveness of dual-process cognitive models. We can design cognitive load tests comparing cognitive patterns of human experts and DTDA systems when processing different types of queries. Through physiological indicators such as eye tracking and EEG, we can verify whether the DTDA framework truly simulates human cognitive processes.

The second level is component efficacy experiments, aimed at verifying independent contributions of various components. Through systematic ablation studies, we can quantify individual contributions of KMUs, structured graphs, and hierarchical retrieval, as well as synergistic effects between them.

The third level is system performance experiments, aimed at verifying overall DTDA framework effects in real application scenarios. We need large-scale deployment testing in multiple high-compliance industries (finance, healthcare, legal), collecting long-term performance data and user feedback.

5.3.3 Repackaging and Repositioning of Contribution Points

Finally, we need to repackage and reposition core contributions of the DTDA framework to better align with academic community value judgment standards.

We suggest repositioning the DTDA framework as "Cognitively-Inspired Knowledge Memory Architecture," emphasizing its theoretical contributions in cognitive modeling and knowledge representation. Specifically, we can restate core contributions as:

1. Theoretical Contribution: Proposed a knowledge integration computational model based on dual-process theory, providing a new theoretical framework for understanding and designing intelligent knowledge systems.
2. Methodological Innovation: Designed parametric-non-parametric decoupled knowledge architecture, achieving differentiated processing and collaborative optimization for different types of knowledge.
3. Empirical Findings: Verified advantages of built-in memory in specific cognitive tasks through large-scale experiments, providing empirical evidence for knowledge representation method selection.
4. Application Value: Provided deployable solutions for high-compliance industries, demonstrating possibilities for theoretical research to practical application transformation.

This repositioning not only highlights the academic value of research but also maintains its practical application importance. By packaging engineering innovation as scientific discovery, the DTDA framework is expected to gain more recognition from the academic community.

6. Implementation Path and Risk Control Strategies

6.1 Detailed Design of Phased Implementation Plan

Considering the complexity of the DTDA framework and necessary improvements, we have developed a six-month phased implementation plan. This plan not only considers technical implementation challenges but also fully considers timing and requirements for academic publication.

Phase 1 (Months 1-2): Theoretical Foundation Construction and Core Module Implementation

In this phase, our primary task is establishing solid theoretical foundations. We will organize an interdisciplinary theoretical seminar group including experts in cognitive science, information theory, and machine learning. Through in-depth theoretical analysis and mathematical derivation, we will establish rigorous theoretical foundations for the DTDA framework.

Simultaneously, we will begin implementing core KMU functionality. This includes designing stable knowledge encoding interfaces, implementing rectangular attention mechanisms, developing temperature annealing gating systems, etc. During implementation, we will pay special attention to modular system design, ensuring loose coupling between components to facilitate subsequent integration and testing.

Phase 2 (Month 3): System Integration and Preliminary Validation

In the second phase, we will complete integration of the three-layer knowledge architecture and implement basic adaptive router functionality. This is the most technically challenging phase of the entire project, requiring resolution of coordination issues between multiple components.

We will adopt a progressive integration strategy, first implementing integration between pairs of components, then gradually expanding to full system integration. At each integration step, we will conduct thorough unit testing and integration testing to ensure system stability and correctness.

Simultaneously, we will begin preliminary performance validation experiments. These experiments mainly focus on whether basic system functions work properly and whether components can effectively collaborate.

Phase 3 (Month 4): Baseline Reproduction and Comparative Experiments

The third phase focuses on reproducing major baseline methods and conducting systematic comparative experiments. We will prioritize reproducing methods most similar to the DTDA framework in technical approach, such as KBLaM and Self-RAG.

During reproduction, we will strictly follow original paper experimental settings to ensure comparison fairness. For methods with excessively high implementation complexity (such as RETRO), we will implement simplified versions or use publicly available pre-trained models.

Comparative experiments will cover multiple dimensions including accuracy, latency, explainability, knowledge update capability, etc. We will particularly focus on performance in high-compliance scenarios, as this is the main application domain of the DTDA framework.

Phase 4 (Month 5): In-Depth Analysis and Paper Writing

In the fourth phase, we will conduct in-depth analysis of experimental results, extracting key insights and findings. This includes ablation studies, error analysis, performance boundary analysis, etc.

We will particularly focus on experimental results that can support theoretical hypotheses, such as validation of dual-process cognitive models, efficiency comparisons of different knowledge representation methods, etc. These analyses will provide strong support for the paper's core contributions.

Simultaneously, we will begin paper writing work. The paper structure will strictly follow top-tier conference requirements, including clear problem statements, rigorous theoretical analysis, comprehensive experimental validation, and in-depth result discussions.

Phase 5 (Month 6): Paper Refinement and Submission Preparation

The final phase mainly involves paper refinement and submission preparation. We will invite domain experts to conduct internal reviews of the paper, making revisions and improvements based on feedback.

We will also prepare all necessary supplementary materials, including source code, experimental data, supplementary experimental results, etc. These materials not only help with paper review but also demonstrate our commitment to open science.

6.2 Technical Risk Identification and Mitigation Measures

During DTDA framework implementation, we have identified several major technical risks and developed corresponding mitigation measures.

Risk 1: Technical Complexity of KMU Attention Injection

KMU implementation requires deep modifications to Transformer architecture, which may lead to training instability or performance degradation. To mitigate this risk, we adopt a progressive implementation strategy. First, we will validate basic KMU functionality on small-scale models; then gradually expand to larger models. We also prepare multiple alternative solutions, including using external memory modules or simplified attention mechanisms.

Risk 2: Algorithmic Complexity of Multi-Layer Routing Coordination

Coordination of three-layer knowledge architecture requires complex routing algorithms, which may lead to unstable system performance or difficult tuning. To address this risk, we design layered training strategies, first training independent functionality of each component, then training coordination mechanisms. We also prepare simplified routing algorithms as alternatives.

Risk 3: Numerical Stability of Cross-Generation Alignment

Attention space alignment may face numerical instability issues, particularly when processing large-scale models. We reduce this risk by using multiple alignment algorithms (MSE, CCA, Procrustes, etc.). Simultaneously, we will establish comprehensive monitoring mechanisms to timely detect and handle numerical anomalies.

Risk 4: Resource Limitations for Baseline Reproduction

Some baseline methods (such as RETRO) require substantial computational resources, potentially exceeding our budget. To address this risk, we will prioritize reproducing methods with relatively lower resource requirements. For high-resource methods, we will seek cooperation with other research institutions or use publicly available pre-trained models.

6.3 Strategic Planning for Academic Publication

Considering characteristics and requirements of different tier conferences, we have developed a layered submission strategy.

Tier 1 Conference Strategy (ACL, EMNLP, ICML, NeurIPS)

For top-tier conferences, we will emphasize theoretical contributions and academic novelty of the DTDA framework. We will position the framework as "Cognitively-Inspired Knowledge Memory Architecture," highlighting its theoretical value in cognitive modeling.

We will pay particular attention to experimental design rigor and result analysis depth. Besides standard performance comparisons, we will also conduct cognitive consistency validation, theoretical boundary analysis, and other in-depth research.

Considering the intense competition of top-tier conferences, we will prepare multiple paper versions, making customized adjustments for different conference characteristics.

Tier 2 Conference Strategy (AAAI, ICLR, IJCAI)

For second-tier conferences, we will emphasize practical value and engineering innovation of the DTDA framework while maintaining theoretical rigor. We will describe system implementation details and deployment experience in detail, providing valuable engineering references for peers.

We will also prepare more complete open-source code and datasets to improve paper impact and citation rates.

Domain Conference Strategy (FinNLP, BioNLP, AI4Law, etc.)

For domain-specific conferences, we will focus on demonstrating DTDA framework application effects in corresponding domains. We will collaborate with domain experts to conduct in-depth case studies and application analysis.

These conferences typically have higher requirements for practicality, so we will describe system deployment effects and user feedback in real business scenarios in detail.

7. Conclusion and Future Outlook

7.1 Summary and Reflection on Research Contributions

Through in-depth analysis and systematic improvement of the DTDA framework, we have reached several important conclusions.

First, the dual-track decoupling design philosophy has important theoretical value and practical significance. By separating general capabilities from domain knowledge at runtime, the DTDA framework provides new insights for building more stable and maintainable intelligent systems. This design not only solves capability degradation problems in traditional methods but also provides technical foundations for rapid knowledge updates and precise traceability.

Second, the three-layer knowledge collaboration mechanism demonstrates advantages of differentiated processing for knowledge representation methods. By assigning different types and granularities of knowledge to the most suitable representation methods, the DTDA framework achieves significant improvements in overall performance. This layered design provides effective architectural patterns for handling complex knowledge systems.

Third, the cross-generation transfer scheme provides practical solutions for addressing adaptation cost problems brought by rapid foundation model iteration. Through attention space alignment and orthogonal subspace minimal rotation, enterprises can enjoy capability improvements from new models at relatively low costs.

However, we must also acknowledge some limitations of the DTDA framework. System implementation complexity is high, requiring careful design and tuning. While theoretical foundations have been strengthened, deeper mathematical analysis and rigorous proofs are still needed. The scope and depth of experimental validation also need further expansion.

7.2 Insights for LLM+RAG Field Development

The DTDA framework research process provides several important insights for LLM+RAG field development.

First, knowledge integration should not be a one-size-fits-all process. Different types of knowledge have different characteristics and requirements, necessitating differentiated processing strategies. Future research should pay more attention to knowledge classification and characteristic analysis, designing specialized representation and processing methods for different types of knowledge.

Second, systematic architectural design is more valuable than single-point technical breakthroughs. While individual components of the DTDA framework have prior work foundations, their systematic integration and coordination mechanisms produce significant synergistic effects. This suggests that while pursuing technical innovation, we should also value system architecture design and optimization.

Third, theoretical guidance is important for technical development. The DTDA framework draws theoretical nutrition from cognitive science and information theory, not only improving technical solution scientific rigor but also providing theoretical guidance for subsequent optimization and expansion. Future research should seek more interdisciplinary theoretical support.

Fourth, deployability and maintainability are factors that cannot be ignored in practical applications. The DTDA framework fully considers enterprise-level deployment requirements during design, including knowledge updates, system monitoring, fault recovery, etc. This engineering mindset has important value for promoting technology from laboratory to industry.

7.3 Future Research Direction Outlook

Based on DTDA framework research experience, we have identified several promising future research directions.

Multimodal Knowledge Integration: Current DTDA framework mainly handles textual knowledge; future extensions could include image, audio, video, and other multimodal knowledge integration. This requires designing new knowledge representation methods and fusion mechanisms to handle semantic alignment and complementary relationships between different modalities.

Federated Knowledge Learning: Under increasingly strict privacy protection and data security requirements, how to conduct knowledge integration without sharing raw data becomes an important challenge. Federated learning concepts can be applied to knowledge management, achieving distributed knowledge updates and collaboration.

Self-Evolving Knowledge Systems: Current knowledge updates mainly rely on manual intervention; future systems should have autonomous learning and evolution capabilities. Through continual learning, active learning, and other technologies, systems can continuously learn new knowledge from user interactions and automatically update knowledge bases.

Knowledge Quality Assurance: As knowledge scale continues expanding, ensuring knowledge quality and consistency becomes a key issue. Future development needs more intelligent knowledge quality detection and repair mechanisms, including knowledge conflict detection, fact checking, logical consistency verification, etc.

Personalized Knowledge Services: Different users have significantly different knowledge needs and preferences; future knowledge systems should provide personalized knowledge services. This requires combining user modeling, recommendation systems, and other technologies to build customized knowledge views for each user.

7.4 Recommendations for Industrial Applications

For enterprises and organizations hoping to adopt similar technologies, we propose the following recommendations:

Progressive Deployment Strategy: Considering DTDA framework complexity, we recommend adopting progressive deployment strategies. Start with pilot programs in single business scenarios, accumulate experience, then gradually expand to more scenarios.

Data Governance First: Knowledge system effectiveness largely depends on data quality and organization methods. Before system construction, establish comprehensive data governance systems including data standards, quality control, update processes, etc.

Cross-Departmental Collaboration: Knowledge system construction requires close collaboration between technical departments, business departments, and compliance departments. We recommend establishing cross-departmental project teams to ensure system design meets all stakeholder requirements.

Continuous Optimization Mechanisms: Knowledge systems are not one-time projects but long-term engineering requiring continuous optimization and maintenance. We recommend establishing comprehensive monitoring and feedback mechanisms, continuously improving systems based on user feedback and performance metrics.

Talent Development Investment: Knowledge system construction and maintenance require professionals with interdisciplinary backgrounds. We recommend increasing investment in related talent development, including internal training and external recruitment.

Through systematic analysis and improvement, the DTDA framework is expected to upgrade from an engineering solution to a research contribution with important academic value. This not only provides practical solutions for AI applications in high-compliance industries but also contributes new theoretical insights and technical paradigms to LLM+RAG field development. We believe that with continuous improvement of theoretical foundations and deepening experimental validation, the DTDA framework will receive deserved recognition at top-tier academic conferences and promote the entire field's advancement.

References

[1] Lata, S. (2025). Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and Memory Systems for HR and Enterprise AI. International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology, DOI: 10.32628/cseit25111702.

[2] Zhong, M., An, C., Chen, W., et al. (2023). Seeking Neural Nuggets: Knowledge Transfer in Large Language Models from a Parametric Perspective. arXiv preprint, DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2310.11451.

[3] Li, T. (2024). Equipping Large Language Models with Memories: A GraphRAG Based Approach. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference, DOI: 10.1109/smc54092.2024.10831551.

[4] Jiang, P., Fan, R., & Yu, Y. (2024). Retrieval Augmented Generation via Context Compression Techniques for Large Language Models. OSF Preprints, DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/ua6j5.

[5] Li, L., Shi, D., Zhou, J., et al. (2025). Retrieval Feedback Memory Enhancement Large Model Retrieval Generation Method. arXiv preprint, DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2508.17862.

[6] Jiang, P., Ouyang, S., Jiao, Y., et al. (2025). Retrieval And Structuring Augmented Generation with Large Language Models. ACM Digital Library, DOI: 10.1145/3711896.3736557.

[7] Zhang, X., Xia, M., Couturier, C., et al. (2023). Hybrid Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Real-time Composition Assistance. arXiv preprint, DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2308.04215.

[8] Bhardwaj, R., Li, Y., Majumder, N., et al. (2023). kNN-CM: A Non-parametric Inference-Phase Adaptation of Parametric Text Classifiers. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, DOI: 10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.903.

[9] Anonymous. (2023). Semiparametric Language Models Are Scalable Continual Learners. arXiv preprint, DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2303.01421.

[10] Wang, Z., Gu, X., Gu, X., & Hu, J. (2024). Enhancing video anomaly detection with learnable memory network: a new approach to memory-based auto-encoders. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, DOI: 10.1016/j.cviu.2024.103946.