Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2509.06307

Can AI Make Energy Retrofit Decisions? An Evaluation of Large Language Models

Lei Shu·Dong Zhao
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Conventional approaches to building energy retrofit decision making suffer from limited generalizability and low interpretability, hindering adoption in diverse residential contexts. With the growth of Smart and Connected Communities, generative AI, especially large language models (LLMs), may help by processing contextual information and producing practitioner readable recommendations. We evaluate seven LLMs (ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok, Llama, and Claude) on residential retrofit decisions under two objectives: maximizing CO2 reduction (technical) and minimizing payback period (sociotechnical). Performance is assessed on four dimensions: accuracy, consistency, sensitivity, and reasoning, using a dataset of 400 homes across 49 US states. LLMs generate effective recommendations in many cases, reaching up to 54.5 percent top 1 match and 92.8 percent within top 5 without fine tuning. Performance is stronger for the technical objective, while sociotechnical decisions are limited by economic trade offs and local context. Agreement across models is low, and higher performing models tend to diverge from others. LLMs are sensitive to location and building geometry but less sensitive to technology and occupant behavior. Most models show step by step, engineering style reasoning, but it is often simplified and lacks deeper contextual awareness. Overall, LLMs are promising assistants for energy retrofit decision making, but improvements in accuracy, consistency, and context handling are needed for reliable practice.

Explore related subjects

cs.AI

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Lei Shu, Dong Zhao. 2025-09-08. Can AI Make Energy Retrofit Decisions? An Evaluation of Large Language Models. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15224081

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗