用可信工具+验证机制,让大模型在电网中更靠谱地做决策。
LLMs and Agentic AI Systems for Smart Grids: A Tutorial on Architectures and Applications

- 大模型只负责规划和调用工具,结果由可信求解器生成并验证
- 电动车充电调度减少7.5-9.5倍未满足用电量,故障诊断修复率提升至43.6%
- 提出四维度评估框架,兼顾准确性、安全性与效率,适合电力系统开发者
大语言模型(LLMs)与智能体系统已从自然语言任务扩展到利用外部工具进行技术领域规划、检索与执行。在智能电网中,近期研究将智能体方案应用于预测、优化与控制,通过语言接口封装可信求解器并编排多步骤工作流。然而,现有文献缺乏统一的设计与评估方法。LLM可能生成数值合理但物理不可行的结果,评估标准不一,且模型应计算与不应计算的边界模糊。本文提出一种求解器扎根的设计原则:仅当数值结果源自可信工具并通过显式验证时才予报告。我们回顾了面向电力系统的LLM与智能体系统的构建模块:提示策略与智能体架构。在四个案例研究中验证该原则:风电预测、电动汽车充电调度、潮流分析与异常诊断,均在相同数据与指标下对比了纯大模型基线与求解器扎根版本。EVAgent复现了CVXPY最优解,使大模型基线未满足电量降低7.5-9.5倍;GridDebugAgent修复17/39种异常情形,总违规次数减少52.3%。我们提出四组评估框架,涵盖任务效用、求解器扎根正确性、忠实性与安全失效、成本与延迟。清晰的分工浮现:智能体可靠地协调、检索与解释,可信工具负责计算,验证门控决定输出内容。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
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.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。