Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces SolarChain-Eval, a physics-constrained benchmark designed to evaluate the trustworthiness of economic agents in decentralized energy markets. By framing market governance as a Gymnasium-compatible Markov Decision Process, the benchmark assesses agents on various dimensions, including market utility and physical safety, while incorporating an LLM-based Planner/Auditor for enhanced oversight. Experimental results highlight a significant utility-safety trade-off, revealing that while RL agents can enhance market utility, they also risk unsafe behaviors, underscoring the necessity for transparent evaluation frameworks that integrate physical constraints.
Trustworthy agentic AI evaluation in decentralized energy markets hinges on balancing market utility and safety, revealing critical vulnerabilities in reward-maximizing strategies.
As agentic AI systems are increasingly applied to cyber-physical environments, their evaluation requires assessment of both task performance and trustworthiness. In decentralized energy markets, autonomous agents may improve market utility, but may also exploit invalid physical data, create artificial liquidity, and produce unstable governance decisions. Therefore, we propose SolarChain-Eval, a physics-constrained benchmark for evaluating trustworthy economic agents. It formulates market governance as a Gymnasium-compatible Markov Decision Process, where agents make hourly decisions. SolarChain-Eval evaluates each policy across multiple dimensions, including market utility, physical safety, slippage, action smoothness, spatial fairness, and auditability. To support agentic evaluation, SolarChain-Eval incorporates an LLM-based Planner/Auditor layer. The Planner defines episode-level action bounds and audit rules, while the Auditor reviews and revises high-risk actions. All interventions are recorded through structured logs, including trigger signals, proposed actions, revised actions, and audit rationales. Experiments with static, random, myopic, RL, and RL+LLM policies reveal a clear utility-safety trade-off. RL agents improve market utility but can still produce unsafe behavior. When the physics penalty is removed, reward-maximizing agents exploit invalid generation and increase artificial liquidity. The LLM Planner/Auditor improves auditability and mitigates selected risks, but it cannot fully compensate for a misspecified reward function. These results indicate that trustworthy agentic AI evaluation requires both physical constraints and transparent intervention traces. We release data and code as open access on GitHub for replicability.
