MEGA Hub

LLMs and Agentic AI Systems for Smart Grids: A Tutorial on Architectures and Applications

Authors

Do you know Daniela Rojas?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Abdulwahab Albassam?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Aidan G. Leung?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Jett Ngo?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Ryan Luo?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Peter R. Quawas?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Junpyung Kim?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Kangkai Liang?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Mansi Nanavati?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Jonathan Mai?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Meng-Chi Tsai?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Yun-Tong Tsai?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Yize Chen?You can claim authorship or link another user.Do you know Yuanyuan Shi?You can claim authorship or link another user.

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.

Community

00

Publication notes

Author note
28 pages, 11 figures, 6 tables; plus supplementary material. Review/tutorial article