FLARE: Physics-Grounded Evaluation of Language-Model Agents for Feeder Restoration with Degraded Observations
Authors: BHVSP Subrahmanyam, Neeraj Choudhary
Organizations: MU-VT Interdisciplinary Advanced Research Centre for Transformative Technologies Mahindra University, India Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India · Department of Computer Science and Engineering Mahindra University, India
Restoring service after distribution-grid faults requires decisions from incomplete and conflicting information while respecting electrical constraints. Addressing this need, we introduce FLARE (Feeder-Level Agent Restoration Evaluation), a physics-grounded benchmark for post-isolation feeder restoration. FLARE con- tains 800 AC-feasible cases across five observation settings and allows agents to gather evidence, evaluate switches, and perform restoration actions under fixed operational limits. We evaluate five instruction-tuned models over 78,750 episodes, including topology, distributed-generation, and loading shifts. Mean normalized regret ranges from 0.082 to 0.148. Although every model has zero median regret, P95 regret ranges from 0.814 to 1.000, revealing an important failure tail. Shadow replay shows that 96.4% of 15,706 guard-rejected actions would have caused a physical violation. FLARE enables reproducible evaluation of language-model based restoration support while emphasizing the need for external safety checks.
Figures & tables
Primary observation setting
Operating shift
Model
Clean
Sparse
Noisy
Stale
Conflict
Topology
DER ratio
Loading
Llama 3.1-8B
0.065
0.131
0.138
0.129
0.158
0.140
0.108
0.141
Mistral Small 24B
0.060
0.092
0.093
0.096
0.098
0.098
0.078
0.105
Qwen 2.5-3B
0.102
0.139
0.161
0.164
0.172
0.153
0.125
0.160
Qwen 2.5-7B
0.060
0.084
0.089
0.088
0.089
0.090
0.071
0.097
Qwen 2.5-14B
0.066
0.116
0.108
0.124
0.140
0.126
0.095
0.125
Figure 1: Mean normalized regret (lower is better; common 0–0.20 color scale). Primary columns use 800 cases; shifts average five settings over 200 cases. Color does not denote significance.
Evaluation
Cases
Purpose
Primary
800
Five-setting model comparison
Independent
150
Separate fault events
Operating shifts
3×200
Topology, DER ratio, and loading
Network types
4×100
Four feeder structures
Interface diagnostics
800
Prompt, memory, ranking, and tools
Stochastic sensitivity
200
Sampled-output check
Table 1: FLARE evaluation sets.
Model
Mean regret [95% CI]
P95
Restored
Unsafe/episode
Llama 3.1-8B
0.124 [0.109, 0.139]
1.000
0.945
0.18
Mistral Small 24B, 4-bit
0.088 [0.073, 0.103]
0.969
0.944
0.16
Qwen 2.5-3B
0.148 [0.132, 0.164]
1.000
0.892
0.21
Qwen 2.5-7B
0.082 [0.068, 0.097]
0.814
0.949
0.17
Qwen 2.5-14B
0.111 [0.096, 0.125]
0.873
0.949
0.16
Table 2: Primary results across five observation settings. Lower regret, P95, and unsafe proposals are better; higher restored fraction is better.
Appendix figures & tables5 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Setting
Coverage
Call FP
Call FN
FI error
Crew error
SCADA age
Flag p
Clean
1.00
0
0
0
0
0 min
0
Sparse
0.35
.05
.10
.05
.02
5 min
0
Noisy
0.35
.20
.25
.20
.05
10 min
0
Stale
0.35
.20
.25
.20
.05
45 min
0
Conflicting
0.25
.30
.30
.30
.08
30 min
.35
Appendix
Table 3: Observation settings. Values are probabilities unless stated otherwise.
Quantity
Value
Restoration horizon
240 minutes
Switching operations
4
Sectionalizer openings
3
Tool calls
20
AC simulations
8
Customer load
1.2 kW per customer
Appendix
Table 4: Episode limits.
Model
Revision
Format
Llama 3.1-8B
0e9e39f249a1
Standard
Mistral Small 24B
b28a0cfd2f7f
4-bit
Qwen 2.5-3B
aa8e72537993
Standard
Qwen 2.5-7B
a09a35458c70
Standard
Qwen 2.5-14B
cf98f3b3bbb4
Standard
Appendix
Table 5: Models used in the experiments. Revisions are shortened for readability.
Figure 2: Change in mean regret under topology, DER, and loading shifts. Bars show 95% confidence intervals. Every interval crosses zero.
Model
No memory
No simulator
No ranking
Schema only
True state
Llama 8B
+.046
−.021
+.066
−.049
−.028
Mistral 24B
−.006
.000
−.015
+.172
−.002
Qwen 3B
+.514
−.001
+.073
+.668
+.045
Qwen 7B
−.006
+.001
−.014
−.007
+.003
Qwen 14B
−.021
−.007
+.070
+.089
−.033
Appendix
Table 6: Change in mean regret after each interface change. Positive values are worse.
Large Language Model (LLM) agents increasingly automate multi-step engineering workflows through tool use, interpretation of intermediate results, and iterative planning. Diagnosing and resolving non-convergent power flow cases is a promising yet largely unexplored application, as it requires engineering judgment, experimentation, and decision-making within constrained action spaces. We introduce a benchmark that evaluates these capabilities across multiple LLMs and three architectures: chatbot, single agent, and multi-agent systems. The evaluation covers two power grids and 46 cases per grid, each requiring one or more corrective actions to restore convergence. The benchmark defines the simulation environment, observation and action spaces, and evaluation metrics, providing a reproducible foundation for developing agentic AI systems for power system planning and operation. The code is available at https://github.com/Mansutti081/RestoreBench
Riccardo Mansutti, Andrea Pomarico, Robert Jakob +3
1ETH Zürich · 2Politecnico di Milano · 3Harvard University
In the maintenance of complex systems, fault trees are used to locate problems and provide targeted solutions. To enable fault trees stored as images to be directly processed by large language models, which can assist in tracking and analyzing malfunctions, we propose a novel textual representation of fault trees. Building on it, we construct a benchmark for multi-turn dialogue systems that emphasizes robust interaction in complex environments, evaluating a model's ability to assist in malfunction localization, which contains 3130 entries and 40.75 turns per entry on average. We train an end-to-end model to generate vague information to reflect user behavior and introduce long-range rollback and recovery procedures to simulate user error scenarios, enabling assessment of a model's integrated capabilities in task tracking and error recovery, and Gemini 2.5 pro archives the best performance.
Large language model (LLM)-assisted energy-management tools can translate natural-language context into structured grid commands, but syntactic validity does not imply physical admissibility. This paper presents TwinGridShield, a model-independent runtime authorization layer that evaluates each proposed action in a deterministic network twin before release. The prototype checks connectivity, branch-flow, generator, and load-shedding invariants and records each decision in a hash-chained log. A controlled IEEE 14-bus study evaluates single-step switching, redispatch, and load-shedding actions using DC power flow and experimentally assigned branch ratings. In the matched-model experiment, a stochastic proposal source configured to select an unsafe action with probability p=0.84 produced 421 unsafe proposals in 500 attacked-condition trials, a realized rate of 84.2%. This value characterizes the configured surrogate and is not an empirical measurement of LLM prompt-injection susceptibility. TwinGridShield produced 0 unsafe releases in those 500 trials. Because action labeling and authorization used the same DC model, system state, branch ratings, and encoded constraints, this result verifies conformance of the implementation to its encoded authorization predicate rather than safety under model error. The principal robustness evaluation therefore introduces model mismatch. Unsafe acceptance reached 5.63% under bounded +20% and -20% per-bus load-measurement error and 30.09% when actual branch ratings were 20% below modeled ratings.
Md Fazley Rafy
Lane Department of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA, 26505