Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper explores the potential of on-premise open-source large language models (LLMs) as structural priors for tuning coupled multi-input multi-output (MIMO) controllers, addressing the challenges posed by decentralized classical auto-tuning and local numerical optimization. While classical relay-feedback tuning outperforms LLM-based tuning in simple scenarios, the LLM excels in complex, strongly coupled systems by reasoning about interactions and proposing effective controller structures, achieving significant performance improvements. The findings highlight the LLM's sample efficiency and interpretability, demonstrating its utility as a structural prior rather than a direct optimizer in control tuning tasks.
LLMs can dramatically improve MIMO controller tuning by reasoning about complex interactions, achieving optimal performance with far fewer evaluations than traditional methods.
Tuning controllers for strongly coupled multi-input multi-output (MIMO) industrial processes is hard: decentralized classical auto-tuning ignores loop interaction, and local numerical optimization from natural initializations stalls in the resulting non-convex cost landscape. We ask whether on-premise open-source large language models (LLMs), which keep data on-site and need no plant model, can help. On a single-loop CSTR, classical relay-feedback tuning (IAE 0.106, near the 0.102 optimum) beats an LLM tuner (0.162): for simple loops the LLM adds nothing. The picture inverts on a strongly coupled quadruple-tank with conflicting set-points, scored by a penalized cost J = IAE + lambda*TV(u) that rewards tracking without chattering actuators. There, naive relay tuning (J ~ 28.6) and naive LLM tuning (29.7) are no better than open loop (22.7), and a local optimizer from balanced starts fails in 10/10 runs. A scaffolded open LLM instead reasons about the coupling, proposes the counter-intuitive asymmetric structure, and reaches J ~ 16.9 +/- 0.2 from any start; refining it with a classical optimizer attains the smooth global optimum (J ~ 12.0, 10/10 vs. 0/10), which even applies a non-obvious negative integral correction decentralized tuning cannot. A global optimizer (differential evolution) also reaches this optimum, so the LLM is not the only route; its advantage is sample efficiency and interpretability: a usable controller in 18 evaluations (where the global optimizer is worse than open loop) plus a stated rationale. This edge grows with dimension, reaching ~6x fewer evaluations on a 3x3 plant. The behaviour generalizes across four open models, and on a benign plant the LLM offers no advantage, sharpening the boundary. We contribute a reproducible benchmark delimiting when open LLMs help in control tuning: not as optimizers, but as a sample-efficient, interpretable structural prior.
