Think Twice, Act Once: A Co-Evolution Framework of LLM and RL for Large-Scale Decision Making

Chao Yang; Mingyang Sun; Wenyue Xu; Xu Wan

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 2 cited by

Think Twice, Act Once: A Co-Evolution Framework of LLM and RL for Large-Scale Decision Making

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that an LLM used only during training as an action corrector and reward critic lifts RL to the best reported results on three large power-grid control tasks.

desk verdict Sensible offline LLM-RL integration with impressive L2RPN numbers, but the headline gains may owe more to the Grid2Op-validated retry loop than to the LLM's reasoning; needs a proposer control before the SOTA claim holds. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.02522 v1 pith:7EKWY7X6 submitted 2025-06-03 cs.AI

Xu Wan , Wenyue Xu , Chao Yang , Mingyang Sun This is my paper

classification cs.AI

keywords largelanguagemodelsreinforcementlearningpowergridcontroltrajectoryrefinementrewardshapingco-evolutionsampleefficiencyL2RPN

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper works to establish that a large language model can act as an offline tutor for a reinforcement-learning agent in large-scale industrial control, where LLMs alone are too slow and RL alone is too sample-hungry. In the proposed Agents Co-Evolution (ACE) framework, the LLM operates only during training in two roles: as a Policy Actor that rewrites low-reward actions and as a Value Critic that re-scores important decisions along whole trajectories. Every proposed action is checked by simulating it in the Grid2Op power-grid environment before it enters the replay buffer. On three L2RPN (Learning to Run a Power Network) benchmarks, ACE's RL agent reaches episode rewards of 69.8, 145.3, and 75.9, beating the expert-guided RL backbone by 22%, 13%, and 145% while using far fewer environment samples. Because the LLM is absent at deployment, the learned RL policy keeps the real-time decision speed that industrial loops require.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the dual-role trajectory-refinement loop that runs while the RL policy trains. The Policy Actor $f^{\text{LLM}}$ (Eq. 4) is invoked on sampled transitions with reward below $\bar{r}$; it receives the state, the RL action, and a 'bad action' negative example in text, and proposes a corrected action that the Grid2Op simulator must confirm before the new transition is stored in the separate buffer $\mathcal{D}_{\text{LLM}}$. The Value Critic $g^{\text{LLM}}$ (Eq. 5) is invoked on key trajectory points, selected by reward magnitude or line-flow change, and returns reward adjustments confined to $\{-2K,-K,+K,+2K\}$ — a discretized analogue of temporal-credit assignment. The mixed sampling distribution $p_{\text{mix}}$ (Eq. 9) with importance weights $w_r(\tau)$ (Eq. 8) then transfers the LLM's improvements into the SAC (Soft Actor-Critic) policy update (Eq. 10), while the same mixed buffer becomes a low-rank adaptation (LoRA) fine-tuning set for the LLM; that two-way flow of data is what the name 'co-evolution' refers to.

What would settle it

Repeat the WCCI 2022 experiment with the Grid2Op validation loop disabled so every LLM-proposed action is accepted un-checked; the claim would be falsified if the 75.9 episode reward and the 145% margin over the expert-guided RL baseline do not fall substantially, because the paper's own Figure 5b shows unvalidated LLM suggestions are poor for long-horizon control. A second check would scramble the text serialization of states and actions while keeping simulation validation intact; if performance stays high, the gains come from the validation filter rather than from LLM reasoning.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

ACE's central claim is that separating LLM reasoning from RL execution — 'think twice, act once' — removes the sample-inefficiency and latency bottlenecks at the same time. During training the Policy Actor takes transitions whose reward $r$ falls below a threshold $\bar{r}$, converts state and action into text, and proposes a corrected action $\hat{a}_t$; the correction is accepted only after Grid2Op simulation confirms it, with up to five revision rounds allowed. The Value Critic takes trajectory snippets at key decision points and returns reward adjustments on a discrete grid $\{-2K,-K,+K,+2K\}$, acting as an implicit multi-step temporal-difference, TD($\lambda$), whose credit assignment does not assume exponential decay. Refined transitions live in a separate LLM buffer, and a mixed sampling distribution with reward-based weights $w_r(\tau)$ feeds the RL updates while also supplying fine-tuning data that improves the LLM coach. At deployment only the RL agent acts, and ACE reports the highest episode rewards on all three L2RPN challenges, with the largest gain (145% over the expert-guided RL backbone) in the WCCI 2022 IEEE-118 environment; ablations on WCCI 2020 show that removing the Actor drops the reward from 69.8 to 48.3 and removing the Critic drops it to 61.5.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a fast, faithful simulator of the real system is always available during training to validate every LLM-proposed action; if that simulator is missing, slow, or inaccurate, the think-twice loop cannot run, and the paper's own evidence indicates LLM suggestions alone are unreliable over long horizons.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Deployment stays real-time even though the coach is a 7B-parameter LLM, because the LLM never acts online and test-time latency is set by the RL policy alone.
A few hundred targeted refinements substitute for tens of thousands of environment samples: ACE needs 287 to 682 refinements on top of 40–50K samples where baselines need 100–200K.
LLM reward re-scoring is a real source of gain, not a rounding error: without the Value Critic the WCCI 2020 episode reward falls from 69.8 to 61.5, and without the Policy Actor to 48.3.
Fine-tuning the coach on the mixed buffer closes the loop: three rounds of SFT let the Qwen2-7B-based ACE beat its untuned self and the non-tuned GPT-4 variant on refined step rewards and independent decision-making.
Offline selective refinement beats policy-regularization-style LLM guidance: the modified LLM4Teach baseline stays near the RL backbone (64.4 on WCCI 2020) while ACE reaches 69.8.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper: none of ACE's equations is power-grid-specific, so the design should transfer to other control domains that have a fast simulator and textual state-action serialization, such as traffic control or cloud resource management.
Beyond the paper: the paper's evidence that unvalidated LLM suggestions degrade over long horizons suggests a direct stress test — vary simulator fidelity and measure how much of the 22%, 13%, and 145% margins survive.
Beyond the paper: since SFT on the mixed buffer independently improved the LLM's own decisions by 10.9%, a longer co-evolution loop might eventually shrink the coach to a small distilled policy, leaving only the fast RL controller at deployment.
Beyond the paper: the discrete reward adjustments and five-round cap imply a refinement budget; a promising extension is to make that budget adaptive, spending more rounds when the simulator's margin between the RL action and the LLM fix is small.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Wan et al. propose ACE, an offline-only LLM guider for RL in large discrete-action control tasks like L2RPN. The design is clean: during training, the LLM both proposes corrected actions for low-reward transitions and reshapes rewards for critical trajectories; each proposed action is simulated in Grid2Op and, if it underperforms the RL action, retried up to five times. At deployment the RL policy acts alone. This separation is sensible and the paper's framing is honest about why pure LLM policies are unsuitable for real-time control (Figure 5b).

What's genuinely useful here is the concrete architecture: a prioritized mixed buffer, reward-weighted policy updates, and periodic LoRA fine-tuning of the LLM on its own validated outputs. The experimental detail is strong—they report per-module compute overhead, ablation studies, and full prompts in the appendix. The L2RPN results are striking, especially the 145% gain over the expert-guided RL backbone on WCCI 2022.

The soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note flags: the marginal contribution of the LLM's reasoning is not identified. Every LLM proposal is filtered by a faithful environment simulator with up to five retries. There is no control that swaps the LLM for a random or rule-based proposer under the same validation-and-retry protocol. Without that, the headline improvements could come mostly from the search/validation loop rather than from anything the LLM understands about power grids. The authors' own Figure 5(b) shows unvalidated LLM suggestions are poor for long-horizon control, which makes this concern more acute. This is an attribution problem, not a circularity problem—the rewards come from Grid2Op and the results are genuinely benchmarked.

A couple of smaller issues: hyperparameters (bad-case threshold, K, query intervals, SFT frequency) appear to be tuned on WCCI 2020, the same environment that produces the headline numbers, and the ablation tables lack error bars. The modified LLM4Teach baseline underperforms even plain RL on WCCI 2022, which suggests their reimplementation may be weak. No code or data is released, so exact reproduction is not possible.

Still, this is a real system with thoughtful experiments and a clear, falsifiable claim. The attribution concern is fixable with one control experiment. I'd send it to review—preferably with a request for that control and for error bars—rather than desk reject. It deserves a serious referee.

Referee Report

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper proposes ACE, a framework that combines an LLM and an RL agent for large-scale power grid control. During training, the LLM acts as a Policy Actor that refines low-reward actions, with each proposal simulated in Grid2Op and up to five retries, and as a Value Critic that adjusts rewards at selected trajectory points. Refined transitions are pooled with RL transitions in a mixed replay buffer using reward-weighted sampling, and the LLM is occasionally fine-tuned on this buffer. At deployment, only the RL policy acts. Experiments on three L2RPN challenges report substantial improvements over the RL backbone and over LLM-only and LLM4Teach baselines, while requiring only a few hundred LLM refinements.

Significance. If the reported gains are genuinely due to LLM reasoning, this is a practical and timely contribution: it separates offline LLM guidance from online RL execution, addressing the real-time latency problem of LLM-based control in industrial settings. The sample-efficiency numbers (287-682 refinements vs 100K-200K environment steps) are striking, and the ablations show that both the actor and critic components contribute on WCCI 2020. The paper is also honest about the limitations of pure LLM control. However, the central attribution of the improvements to LLM reasoning remains unresolved because no control replaces the LLM proposer with a random or rule-based proposer under the same Grid2Op validation and retry protocol. In addition, the state-of-the-art claim on WCCI 2022 lacks comparison with the actual challenge winner or the cited AlphaZero-based method. These issues do not refute the empirical results, but they currently prevent the paper from establishing its central causal claim.

major comments (2)

[Algorithm 1, Section 4.3] The attribution of ACE's gains to LLM reasoning is not identified. In Algorithm 1 (lines 10-18) and Section 4.3, every fLLM action is simulated in Grid2Op, and up to five rounds of new proposals are allowed until the refined action beats the RL action. No control replaces fLLM with a random or rule-based proposer under the same validation and retry budget. The 'w/o Multi-round' ablation in Table 2 only removes the retry loop, not the LLM, and Figure 5(b) shows unvalidated LLM suggestions are poor for long-horizon control. The reported improvements over the RL backbone (22%, 13%, 145% in Table 1) could therefore come from the validated retry procedure rather than from LLM reasoning. Please add a control that uses a non-LLM proposer (e.g., random actions or a simple heuristic) with identical Grid2Op validation and the same five-round retry limit, and report the resulting episode rewards.
[Table 1, Section 4.1] The state-of-the-art claim on WCCI 2022 is not supported by the selected baselines. Table 1 compares ACE only to the authors' own expert-guided RL backbone and to a modified LLM4Teach. For WCCI 2022, Section 4.1 cites Dorfer et al. (2022) but the paper never compares ACE to that method or to the actual L2RPN WCCI 2022 challenge winner. 'State-of-the-art' requires comparison with the best known methods on that benchmark; please add such comparisons or restrict the claim to the considered baselines.

minor comments (7)

[Eq. (6) and Eq. (8)] The symbol β denotes the mixing ratio in Eq. (6) and also the temperature in the exponential of Eq. (8); using the same symbol for two quantities in the same derivation is confusing and should be corrected.
[Table A.2, Section 4.5] Table A.2 lists 'Reward threshold (¯r & r) 0.1 & 0.5', while Section 4.5 reports experiments with r ∈ {-0.3, 0, 0.3} and Table 3 shows the default r = 0. Please clarify the default threshold values.
[Table 1 footnote] The dagger marker † is attached both to ACE (Qwen2-7B + SFT) and to ACE (GPT-4), but the footnote says ACE (GPT-4) does not include SFT; use separate markers for the SFT and no-SFT configurations to avoid ambiguity.
[Section 3.3, Algorithm 1] Algorithm 1 (line 18) stores all refined transitions in D_LLM, whereas Eq. (9) filters them with Iv(τ) at sampling time; please state explicitly whether invalid refinements are discarded at storage time or stored and down-weighted.
[Section 3.3] The sentence 'we apply low-rank adaptation fine-tuning on Dmix with reward signals as labels' is under-specified; please define the loss function and describe how the reward labels are used (supervised action prediction, preference ranking, or other).
[Appendix A.2] There are typographical errors in Table A.2: 'SFT buffer size 10,00' should be 10,000, and 'Max Token off LLM' should be 'Max Token of fLLM'.
[Section 5.1, Figure 5] The text refers to Figure 5(a) and 5(b), but the caption describes left/right panels; align the in-text references with the figure labels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ACE's benchmark claims are anchored to external Grid2Op rewards, and no load-bearing step reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper's chain of evidence is self-contained against an external environment. The Actor/Critic refinement (Eqs. 4-5) generates candidate actions and rewards, but Algorithm 1 line 18 requires every refinement to be simulated in Grid2Op before entering D_LLM, and Eq. (8) weights transitions by the simulated reward rather than by the LLM's own estimate. The final episode rewards in Table 1 are computed by the RL agent on L2RPN test episodes, an external benchmark; they are neither fitted parameters nor restatements of the refinement outputs. The only self-referential element, online LoRA fine-tuning of fLLM on Dmix, is grounded by simulator rewards and RL-generated trajectories, and the paper's headline claims do not depend on a self-citation or an imported uniqueness theorem. The attribution of gains to LLM reasoning rather than to the simulator-validated retry loop is a legitimate experimental-design concern, but it is an attribution risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework's empirical wins rest on a menu of hand-tuned thresholds and scales (K, r, r_bar, beta, query intervals, SFT frequency), several of which were selected using the same benchmark data that produces the headline results. The heaviest hidden load is the Grid2Op simulator, which serves as both the ground truth and the validator for every LLM proposal, so gains should be attributed to the simulator-backed search as much as to the model.

free parameters (6)

Reward adjustment scale K = 0.2 / 0.5 in Table A.2; ablation values 0.2, 0.3, 0.4
Hand-chosen scale for the discretized reward modifications in the Value Critic (Eq. 5). It directly controls how much the LLM reshapes the training reward, and it was tuned on WCCI 2020 in Section 4.5.
Bad-case threshold r = 0 in the main config; ablation values -0.3, 0, 0.3
Trigger for activating the Policy Actor fLLM (Eq. 4). It determines how many transitions are refined, and the ablation shows performance varies from 61.8 to 68.1 depending on the choice.
Critical trajectory threshold r_bar = 0.1 per Table A.2 ('reward threshold (r_bar & r) 0.1 & 0.5')
Filters which trajectories are sent to the LLM Critic for reward re-estimation (Eq. 5). The reported value is chosen by hand and is not derived from the problem structure.
Mixing ratio beta = 0.5
Ratio of LLM-buffer samples in the mixed replay distribution (Eqs. 6 and 9). The same symbol is reused in Eq. 8 as the temperature of the importance weight, which is a notation clash that also affects numerical behavior.
LLM query intervals = fLLM 256 steps, gLLM 32 steps
Activation frequencies of the Actor and Critic. The ablation shows a 32-step gLLM interval gives 68.1 reward versus 51.5 at 512 steps, so this choice strongly affects the reported gains.
SFT frequency = once per 100 generated samples for ACE (Qwen2-7B)
LoRA fine-tuning cadence of the LLM on the mixed buffer. The ablation shows three-time SFT reaches 68.1 versus 58.9 with no SFT, making this a consequential tuned choice.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The MDP reward r_t = load_t / prod_t (or -lambda_fail on termination) is an adequate proxy for real grid operational quality.
Section A.1, Eq. 13. This reward is inherited from Yoon et al. 2021 and defines the objective; if it misrepresents the true operating goals, the benchmark results transfer poorly to live grids.
domain assumption The Grid2Op simulator is a faithful, fast ground truth for grid state transitions.
Algorithm 1 line 18 validates every LLM refinement by Grid2Op simulation, and Section 4.3's multi-round reasoning keeps actions only when simulation shows improvement. The whole think-twice loop presumes the simulator is correct and cheap enough to call repeatedly.
ad hoc to paper Bounded LLM reward shaping does not degrade the optimal policy.
Section 3.2 (Eq. 5) applies discrete reward modifications selected by the LLM without a potential-based shaping condition or an invariance argument. The paper assumes empirically that the shaping helps, but provides no theoretical guarantee that the learned policy remains optimal for the true reward.
standard math SAC remains stable under the weighted mixed-buffer sampling distribution.
Eqs. (2), (3), and (10) combine importance weighting with standard SAC updates. The Q-update in Eq. (2) is applied to mixed-buffer samples without an explicit correction for the skewed sampling distribution, so off-policy bias is possible though empirically tolerated.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Think Twice, Act Once: A Co-Evolution Framework of LLM and RL for Large-Scale Decision Making." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7EKWY7X6

@misc{pith2026250602522,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Think Twice, Act Once: A Co-Evolution Framework of LLM and RL for Large-Scale Decision Making},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7EKWY7X6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.02522}
}

read the original abstract

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) and Reinforcement Learning (RL) have shown significant promise in decision-making tasks. Nevertheless, for large-scale industrial decision problems, both approaches face distinct challenges: LLMs lack real-time long-sequence decision-making capabilities, while RL struggles with sample efficiency in vast action spaces. To bridge this gap, we propose Agents Co-Evolution (ACE), a synergistic framework between LLMs and RL agents for large-scale decision-making scenarios. ACE introduces a dual-role trajectory refinement mechanism where LLMs act as both Policy Actor and Value Critic during RL's training: the Actor refines suboptimal actions via multi-step reasoning and environment validation, while the Critic performs temporal credit assignment through trajectory-level reward shaping. Concurrently, RL agent enhances LLMs' task-specific decision-making with high-quality fine-tuning datasets generated via prioritized experience replay. Through extensive experiments across multiple power grid operation challenges with action spaces exceeding 60K discrete actions, ACE demonstrates superior performance over existing RL methods and LLM-based methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.02522 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The motivation and challenges of integrating LLM with RL for large-scale industrial decision making. (Yao et al., 2022) utilizes chain-of-thought prompting to generate task-specific actions with reasoning traces. Furthermore, recent studies have explored integrating LLMs as policy experts to guide RL agents’ interactions (Nam et al., 2023). LLM4Teach (Zhou et al., 2023) incorporates LLM guidance by introducing polic… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The architecture of ACE framework with dual-role LLM. improved by minimizing: Lπ(θ) = Es∼DRL [Ea∼πθ [α log πθ(a|s) − Qϕ(s, a)]] (3) As shown in Eq. (2) and Eq. (3), the learning efficiency heavily depends on the target value y computed using both Q-function and policy. However, in early training stages with large action spaces, both the Q-function estimation and policy exploration are unreliable. It directly motivat… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Training episode rewards comparison between ACE and baselines across 3 L2RPN competitions. decline, with the episode rewards plummeting to 48.3 and the survival rate dropping to 71.4%. Similarly, the removal of the Critic component gLLM also results in a notable decrease in performance, with episode rewards reaching 61.5 and a survival rate of 84.7%. Additionally, we analyze the impact of the reasoning strategies.… view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Ablation study results comparing ACE variants over training episodes on NeurIPS 2020 dataset. impracticality of using complete trajectories for LLM-based reward shaping, we explore three key trajectories selection criteria to reduce gLLM input tokens: reward-based sele…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Left: Step-wise reward analysis in refining RL trajectories. Right: Comparison between episode performance and test time for different RL and LLM configurations on WCCI 2020. and correction capabilities. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: The test environment of L2RPN WCCI 2020 and NeurIPS 2020 challenge, consisting of 36 substations (blue circles), 59 transmission lines (blue lines), 22 generators (green marks) and several loads (yellow marks). Red boxes highlight critical load areas with percentage in…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The demonstration of ACE action refinement in power grid operation. Upper row shows the state transition under original RL action, where a dangerous state (left) becomes more severe (right) after applying the topology change on substation 26 (middle). Lower row demonst…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Thinking vs. Doing: Agents that Reason by Scaling Test-Time Interaction
cs.LG 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Scaling the number of interaction steps, trained via a curriculum over rollout horizon, improves web-agent task success and outperforms scaling per-step reasoning under fixed token budgets.
AIGB-R1: Self-Evolving Generative Auto-Bidding via Hierarchical Planner-Executor Optimization
cs.LG 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

AIGB-R1 couples an LLM strategy planner with a prompt-conditioned Decision Transformer executor and trains both end-to-end with a decoupled-GRPO self-evolving loop, reporting the highest Score on the AuctionNet benchmark.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Limit your changes no more than 5 lines id

work page
[2]

This indirect approach may help redistribute the load and reduce stress on overloaded lines

Consider adjusting the topology of their shared (connected) lines. This indirect approach may help redistribute the load and reduce stress on overloaded lines

work page
[3]

Response Format: Please analyze the situation and provide your response in the following format:

Reason from the example line changes, and avoid outputting the BAD line change. Response Format: Please analyze the situation and provide your response in the following format:

work page
[4]

Use ONLY values 0 or 1 in new bus id

work page
[5]

Consider line cooldown constraints. Input State-Action Parsing forg LLM Episode Overview: - Total steps: 14 - Initial time step: 2012-4-23-6-55 - Final time step: 2012-8-23-5-15 - Cumulative reward: 34.46 Key Timestep Analysis: - Time step 2012-4-23-6-55: Action:{73: 1}Reward: -0.48 Highest line usage: 90.68% (Line 39) Overloaded lines: 0 Key reason: Firs...

work page 2012
[6]

Analysis of critical issues

work page
[7]

Reason and analysis why the provided line change examples are BAD if provided

work page
[8]

Propose your response to target line changes (Use ONLY values 0 or 1 in bus id.)] proposed line changes: {line id: new bus id, line id: new bus id} Remember:

work page

Show all 19 references

[9]

Do not add any bold formatting, asterisks, or other special characters

Use exactly the format shown above. Do not add any bold formatting, asterisks, or other special characters
[10]

For proposed line changes, only include the chosen lines and the target topology
[13]

Key decision point indices are the time step indices in the episode (starting from 0), select up to 4 most important decision points
[14]

Reward adjustments can only be one of +0.4, +0.2, -0.2, -0.4
[15]

Provide your analysis results in the following format: Key Decision Point Indices: [X, Y , A, B] Reward Adjustments: [W, V , T, S]

Both lists must be of the same length and correspond in order Response Format: Please analyze the below information and select decision points where the reward estimation might be erroneous. Provide your analysis results in the following format: Key Decision Point Indices: [X,...
[16]

Index X (Adjustment W): [Explain why this decision point is important and why this adjustment value was chosen]
[17]

Index Y (Adjustment V): [Explain why this decision point is important and why this adjustment value was chosen]
[18]

Index A (Adjustment T): [Explain why this decision point is important and why this adjustment value was chosen]
[19]

For fLLM, this includes power grid topology rules and operational constraints, while for gLLM, it focuses on reward assessment criteria and safety standards

Index B (Adjustment S): [Explain why this decision point is important and why this adjustment value was chosen] While fLLM and gLLM serve different roles in ACE, their prompts share a structured design pattern consisting of two essential components: Task Description Prefix: A ...
[6299]

Nam, T., Lee, J., Zhang, J., Hwang, S

IEEE, 2018. Nam, T., Lee, J., Zhang, J., Hwang, S. J., Lim, J. J., and Pertsch, K. Lift: Unsupervised reinforcement learn- ing with foundation models as teachers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08958, 2023. Nazeer, M. S., Laschi, C., and Falotico, E. Soft dagger: Sample-efficient im...

2018 arXiv
[8677]

Fu, J., Luo, K., and Levine, S

PMLR, 2023b. Fu, J., Luo, K., and Levine, S. Learning robust rewards with adversarial inverse reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.11248, 2017. Fu, Y ., Xue, L., Huang, Y ., Brabete, A.-O., Ustiugov, D., Pa- tel, Y ., and Mai, L. Serverlessllm: Low-latency serverle...

2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Limit your changes no more than 5 lines id

work page

[2] [2]

This indirect approach may help redistribute the load and reduce stress on overloaded lines

Consider adjusting the topology of their shared (connected) lines. This indirect approach may help redistribute the load and reduce stress on overloaded lines

work page

[3] [3]

Response Format: Please analyze the situation and provide your response in the following format:

Reason from the example line changes, and avoid outputting the BAD line change. Response Format: Please analyze the situation and provide your response in the following format:

work page

[4] [4]

Use ONLY values 0 or 1 in new bus id

work page

[5] [5]

Consider line cooldown constraints. Input State-Action Parsing forg LLM Episode Overview: - Total steps: 14 - Initial time step: 2012-4-23-6-55 - Final time step: 2012-8-23-5-15 - Cumulative reward: 34.46 Key Timestep Analysis: - Time step 2012-4-23-6-55: Action:{73: 1}Reward: -0.48 Highest line usage: 90.68% (Line 39) Overloaded lines: 0 Key reason: Firs...

work page 2012

[6] [6]

Analysis of critical issues

work page

[7] [7]

Reason and analysis why the provided line change examples are BAD if provided

work page

[8] [8]

Propose your response to target line changes (Use ONLY values 0 or 1 in bus id.)] proposed line changes: {line id: new bus id, line id: new bus id} Remember:

work page