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
It is argued 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
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 is presented.
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.
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 is introduced.