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.
Abstract
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.
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.
Daniel Rojas, Abdulwahab Albassam, Aidan G. Leung et al.· 0 citations
Enterprises are deploying autonomous AI agents faster than they can govern them, and prevailing approaches stretch a single discipline, typically DevSecOps built for deterministic automation, across every scale of agency. We argue that agentic AI governance is four problems, not one, each with a mature governing science. The CASE framework assigns Control theory to the individual agent (intent as setpoint, guardrails as feedback, evaluation as observation), complex Adaptive systems theory to agent collectives (where emergence makes single-agent assurance non-compositional), Supervisory cybernetics to human-agent teams (where the Law of Requisite Variety shows unaided human oversight fails structurally), and Engineering operations to fleets (extending error budgets to decision quality so autonomy becomes a controlled variable). We formalize each layer, derive cross-layer coupling conditions, including a zero-touch deployment paradox where excellence at one-layer strains the others, and trace twenty-plus enterprise controls to their classical constructs. Three empirical studies validate the thesis: 82 percent of documented production agent failures are multi-layer trajectories; none of 22 ecosystem tools offers full Layer 2 (emergence) coverage; and all 35 scored public deployments fall in the lowest maturity band. We name this mismatch, risk realized at the emergence layer against capability barely offered and practice absent, the Emergence Gap. A five-level maturity model with a non-compensatory bottleneck-weighted index and assessment instrument operationalizes CASE as a scientific rather than process maturity model, grounded in production enterprise agentic platforms. As EU AI Act Article 14 makes effective human oversight a legal requirement, only architectures satisfying requisite variety can make oversight real rather than ceremonial.
Srinivas Telukunta, Georgios Nektarios Lilis, Lucio Baron· 0 citations
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.
Agentic AI extends energy management beyond fixed-form interaction by translating natural-language requests into coordinated scheduling actions. We present a hierarchical ReAct Energy Management System (EMS) in which one orchestrator coordinates specialist agent types for shiftable appliances, EV charging, and thermal control. Physical authorization is separated from language generation: a deterministic critic reconstructs each integrated day-ahead candidate and checks its schema, appliance cycles, device power, thermal comfort, and, when active, the whole power feeder limit. Across Qwen 3.5 checkpoints, single-appliance mixed-integer schedules were feasible in 83.3 percent of runs. Localized feedback produced no accepted coupled schedule, whereas a multi-step policy authorized 6/6 current coupled runs: 3/3 for 27B and 3/3 for 35B-A3B. The standard occupied-window policy permits pre-conditioning, enforces comfort from 09:00-18:00. Every accepted schedule passed an independent final replay. Feasible costs were 2522.499 JPY for 27B and 1592.697 JPY for 35B-A3B, which are slightly higher than the mathematical optimization optimum of 1343.380 JPY. These results establish a fail-closed workflow for agentic MIP and MILP energy scheduling under the declared physical model.
This paper addresses human error in network orchestration systems and the high cost and resource requirements of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) for network orchestration. It proposes a framework for implementing an AI decision-maker and automation. Data are fed into the AI decision-maker to trigger designated automation robots’ tasks or notify IT specialists to gradually implement automated robots, ensuring efficient resource use, reducing costs, and enhancing productivity. We evaluated the proposed method in a simulation with genuinely uncertain outcomes, across 20 independent runs: the AI decision-maker reached 78.3% accuracy against an estimated 79.1% achievable ceiling, and the proposed framework reduced operational cost by 61.4 ± 0.7% relative to fully manual operation—the best of six operating policies in the training environment—while an explicit sensitivity guard, rather than the learned model, accounts for the absence of security incidents; under distribution shift, the framework retains 43.2 ± 0.8% savings, second only to a hand-tuned rule-based router that requires environment-specific threshold calibration. However, the proposed method requires an IT specialist to implement it properly, and the AI model’s accuracy depends on the amount of input data. In the end, we recommend that future work conduct a study focused on AI decision-makers, test the proposed method on real-world companies, and implement AI decision-makers across various departments to cover a broader range of the company’s systems.
As agentic AI systems are increasingly applied to cyber-physical environments, their evaluation requires assessment of both task performance and trustworthiness. In decentralized energy markets, autonomous agents may improve market utility, but may also exploit invalid physical data, create artificial liquidity, and produce unstable governance decisions. Therefore, we propose SolarChain-Eval, a physics-constrained benchmark for evaluating trustworthy economic agents. It formulates market governance as a Gymnasium-compatible Markov Decision Process, where agents make hourly decisions. SolarChain-Eval evaluates each policy across multiple dimensions, including market utility, physical safety, slippage, action smoothness, spatial fairness, and auditability. To support agentic evaluation, SolarChain-Eval incorporates an LLM-based Planner/Auditor layer. The Planner defines episode-level action bounds and audit rules, while the Auditor reviews and revises high-risk actions. All interventions are recorded through structured logs, including trigger signals, proposed actions, revised actions, and audit rationales. Experiments with static, random, myopic, RL, and RL+LLM policies reveal a clear utility-safety trade-off. RL agents improve market utility but can still produce unsafe behavior. When the physics penalty is removed, reward-maximizing agents exploit invalid generation and increase artificial liquidity. The LLM Planner/Auditor improves auditability and mitigates selected risks, but it cannot fully compensate for a misspecified reward function. These results indicate that trustworthy agentic AI evaluation requires both physical constraints and transparent intervention traces. We release data and code as open access on GitHub for replicability.