Knowledge Graphs as the Missing Data Layer for LLM-Based Industrial Asset Operations

Abstract

LLM-based agents for industrial asset operations show limited accuracy when reasoning over flat document stores. AssetOpsBench (KDD 2026) establishes that GPT-4 agents achieve 65% on 139 industrial maintenance scenarios, and compares LLM orchestration paradigms (Agent-As-Tool vs. Plan-Execute) on a fixed data layer. We ask the orthogonal question: how much does the data model behind the tools matter? We treat a typed knowledge graph as a grounding substrate and route each question by how it is best answered: (i) LLM-generated Cypher for structured retrieval, which lifts the same GPT-4 model from 65% to 82-83%; (ii) native graph and optimization primitives, with no LLM, reaching 99% on graph-answerable scenarios; and (iii) generation-augmented knowledge (GAK) for answers absent from the data -- the engine's agent materializes the missing facts as provenance-tagged graph nodes, then answers. A recurring theme is inverted LLM usage: we constrain the LLM to query generation or one-shot enrichment from a typed schema and let the graph execute deterministically. On the 88 real AssetOpsBench failure-mode scenarios the benchmark itself flags non-deterministic -- ten equipment types absent from the graph -- GAK lifts answerability from zero to 100% of equipment types and answers 81.8% of scenarios, every materialized fact tagged source:LLM-derived for auditability. We also contribute 40 graph-native scenarios. For structured operational domains the data layer -- not the LLM orchestration -- is the primary lever, and a typed knowledge graph serves as a grounding substrate between raw industrial data and LLM reasoning.