A solver-grounded design principle is presented: a numerical result is reported only when it originates from a trusted tool and passes explicit verification, and a four-group evaluation framework spanning task utility, solver-grounded correctness, faithfulness and safe failure, and cost and latency is proposed.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) and agentic AI systems have evolved from natural language tasks to using external tools to plan, retrieve, and act in technical domains. In smart grids, recent work applies agentic schemes to forecasting, optimization, and control, wrapping trusted solvers behind language interfaces and orchestrating multi-step workflows. The literature lacks a unified approach to designing and evaluating such systems. LLMs can produce numerically plausible yet physically infeasible outputs, evaluation protocols vary across tasks, and the boundary between what the model should and should not compute is implicit. This paper presents a solver-grounded design principle: a numerical result is reported only when it originates from a trusted tool and passes explicit verification. We review the building blocks of LLM and agentic AI systems for power systems: prompting strategies and agentic architectures. We instantiate the principle in four case studies: wind power forecasting, EV charging scheduling, power flow analysis, and contingency diagnosis, each comparing an LLM-only baseline against its solver-grounded counterpart on identical data and metrics. EVAgent reproduces the CVXPY optimum while reducing LLM-only unmet energy by 7.5-9.5x, and GridDebugAgent repairs 17/39 contingency cases while reducing total violations by 52.3%. We propose a four-group evaluation framework spanning task utility, solver-grounded correctness, faithfulness and safe failure, and cost and latency. A consistent division of labor emerges: the agentic system reliably orchestrates, retrieves, and explains, while trusted tools compute and a verification gate decides what is reported.
Through applied case studies in pharmaceutical discovery and financial systems, common design patterns that make agentic systems successful are analyzed, and practical mitigation strategies for failure modes are discussed, such as verification pipelines, fallback mechanisms, and human-in-the-loop supervision.
Grace Hui Yang, P. Venkit, Hooman Sedghamiz et al.· Proceedings of the 32nd ACM...· 0 citations
Energy system operation contains a loop of work that automation has never taken over: posing the optimization problem the current cycle should solve, disposing of infeasibility, sequencing a solution into interlocked switching orders, assembling evidence no single model holds, negotiating adjustable capacity with many parties, and settling experience into practice. Licensed dispatchers carry all of it in person, and the rising share of variable renewable generation is making that loop turn faster than their number can grow. Agentic AI supplies the abilities it requires, but enters as the outer loop of control: it calls SCED and the other decision models rather than being called by them. We propose A-CPES, three nested rings, an authorization and accountability frame around an agentic control outer loop around a six-layer CPES core. We argue the loop is indivisible, tune where and how tightly it may close, state eight structural failure modes as falsifiable predictions, and specify six governance modules that rebuild the authorization frame until it covers the loop, before the loop starts turning.
Xiaoyu Zhang, Qiuye Sun, Jiachen Xu et al.· 0 citations
Large Language Model (LLM)–based agents are rapidly evolving from passive assistants into autonomous, tool-using, and collaborative systems capable of executing complex, long-horizon tasks across web, software, and physical environments. However, the current literature remains fragmented, with inconsistent terminology, ad hoc architectures, and limited evaluation standards, making it difficult to compare systems or deploy them reliably in real-world settings. This paper presents a unified, taxonomy-driven, and deployment-oriented survey of agentic AI systems, synthesizing recent advances through a modular reference architecture and a four-dimensional taxonomy that characterizes agents along the axes of autonomy, tool use, collaboration, and safety–governance. We systematically analyze representative single-agent, tool-augmented, and multi-agent frameworks within this taxonomy, highlighting design trade-offs, capability scaling patterns, and recurring failure modes. Beyond architectural analysis, we review emerging evaluation methodologies that move beyond static benchmarks to assess agent behavior, robustness, grounding, and operational cost in interactive environments. Importantly, the survey emphasizes practical considerations for enterprise and safety-critical deployment, including access control, human-in-the-loop oversight, and policy enforcement. By unifying conceptual foundations with empirical trends and deployment constraints, this work provides a structured roadmap for researchers and practitioners to design, evaluate, and govern next-generation LLM-based agentic systems.
Sparsh Bajoria, Shreyanshu Ranjan, Adhitya M et al.· Cognitive Computation· 0 citations
The main conclusion is that practical Agentic IoT depends less on placing an entire agent at one tier than on partitioning perception, memory, reasoning, and action under explicit latency, privacy, reliability, and safety constraints.
Evaluations of LLM planning agents largely ask whether a task succeeds or a declared plan is followed. In strategic cyber-physical systems, a stronger question is whether the planning architecture remains appropriate after autonomous participants respond and physics constrains the outcome. We introduce a controlled, physics-grounded benchmark built around planning-induced control trajectories: the ordered planning operations and directives through which an execution architecture acts on other agents and the physical process. It implements predefined, sequential, hierarchical, and search executors in a smart-grid demand-response system with 40 heterogeneous prosumers and an independently simulated radial feeder. The LLM is bounded to typed policy declaration and short operator messages, while schedule construction, prosumer dynamics, and power flow remain explicit code. The protocol uses paired forced-mode counterfactuals, common random response draws, and event-level deadline feasibility. Three properties follow. Architecture materially changes outcomes: forced search is the oracle in all five baseline seeds. Execution fidelity needs more than mode agreement: objective substitution holds agreement at 1.0 while increasing voltage shortfall by 2.68x. A 144-scenario, 576-episode bank has feasible oracles from three of the four architectures. A prespecified stress-held-out ridge has mean regret 90.7 (95% interval [73.8, 108.6]) and no detectable value over fixed sequential; applying known deadline feasibility before quality prediction cuts regret to 29.0 and improves over fixed sequential by 61.1. An all-feasible ablation does not beat fixed search, localising the remaining challenge to within-feasible quality selection. A five-model extension separates stress-conditioned, state-blind, and invariant declarers; latency tails show that live feasibility should be treated probabilistically.