Large language models show promise for writing control code and automating development tasks in industrial process automation, potentially shortening manufacturing software cycles, but benefits are demonstrated only on a narrow set of proprietary, domain-specific examples.

Main Finding

General-purpose LLMs can successfully assist in simple, recurring industrial process automation (IPA) programming tasks (e.g., RAPID movement-routine edits) with prompt engineering, but they struggle with more complex transformations. Bridging the gap to production-quality proprietary code requires retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), lightweight fine-tuning (e.g., LoRA), and multimodal integration of IPA data (schedules, electronic plans, functional diagrams) plus rigorous validation (digital twins + expert review).

Key Points

• Research goal: answer whether and how LLMs can be adapted and integrated to generate and optimize proprietary IPA programming languages (MRQ), decomposed into RQ1–RQ3:
  • RQ1: Limitations of existing LLMs on proprietary code.
  • RQ2: Can prompt engineering alone produce valid industrial code?
  • RQ3: How to integrate IPA data modalities to assist/train LLMs.
• Practical constraints in IPA:
  • Training data is proprietary, heterogeneous (XML, drawings, formal diagrams) and scarce for SMEs.
  • SMEs lack labeled data, compute, and AI expertise; large vendor solutions are often closed and vendor-locked.
• Proposed multi-stage approach:
• Prompt engineering and few-shot examples as a low-cost baseline (suitable for SMEs).
• Evaluate limitations; then apply RAG and lightweight fine-tuning (LoRA) for limited-data regimes.
• Integrate multiple IPA data modalities and standardize import/export for context-aware generation.
• Expected contributions: systematic analysis of LLM strengths/limits on proprietary languages; mitigation strategies (RAG/LoRA); a design for multimodal IPA data usage.
• Evaluation plan: mixed-methods — automated validator measuring adherence to proprietary standards and functional correctness (via digital twins), plus engineer productivity and qualitative feedback.

Data & Methods

• Data modalities targeted:
  • Schedules (timing/sequence of operations),
  • Electronic plans (physical interconnections, wiring),
  • Functional diagrams (control logic),
  • Source code in vendor languages (e.g., ABB RAPID, PLC ladder/structured text).
• Methods:
  • Prompt engineering / few-shot prompting with contextual examples.
  • Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to fetch project-specific examples.
  • Lightweight fine-tuning (LoRA) for limited-domain adaptation.
  • Validation via custom rule-based validator and execution in digital twins for functional testing.
  • Human expert assessment for correctness, maintainability, adherence to industry practices, and productivity impact.
• Initial case study (RAPID movement routines; single LLM):
  • Tasks evaluated: argument modification, adding offset, reversing movement routines.
  • Reported accuracies:
    • Arguments modification: German 99.71%, English 99.36%
    • Adding an offset: German 91.86%, English 91.97%
    • Reversing routines: German 77.27%, English 83.72%
  • Interpretation: high accuracy on small, structured edits; lower performance on complex rewrites (motivates RAG/LoRA).

Implications for AI Economics

• Adoption & productivity:
  • Short-term: Prompt-engineering and local LLM-assisted workflows can substantially reduce development time for routine IPA tasks, improving SME productivity without heavy investment.
  • Medium-term: RAG + light fine-tuning and multimodal pipelines enable higher-value automation (more complex code-generation), increasing attainable automation gains.
• Market opportunities:
  • Demand for tooling/services: curated RAG systems, integration middleware, turnkey fine-tuning packages, validation/digital-twin testing as-a-service.
  • Niche markets for vendor-aware LLM tooling that bridges proprietary languages and multi-vendor ecosystems.
• Barriers & frictions:
  • Data privacy and heterogeneity prevent centralized, shared-model training; this favors localized RAG and on-premise/synthetic-data solutions.
  • Vendor lock-in risks: closed vendor assistants (e.g., Siemens Industrial Copilot) can limit competition; interoperable standards and open toolchains can create competitive markets for SME-focused tools.
• Labor & skills:
  • Demand shift: fewer routine coding tasks for human PLC programmers; higher demand for engineers who can validate, integrate, and supervise LLM outputs, and for AI/automation-savvy engineers.
  • Training needs: reskilling investments for workers to manage human-in-the-loop workflows and to use validation/digital-twin tools.
• Risk & regulatory considerations:
  • Safety-critical systems require robust validation; hallucinations or incorrect control code pose operational and liability risks.
  • Economic value capture will depend on demonstrable reliability metrics and certification pathways for AI-assisted IPA code.
• Policy & firm recommendations:
  • Firms: adopt incremental deployment (start with prompt-engineered, low-risk edits), invest in RAG/local retrieval, use digital twins for validation, and keep humans in the loop for safety-critical decisions.
  • Policymakers/support organizations: subsidize standards development and SME access to validation/digital-twin infrastructure; encourage interoperable formats to lower integration costs.
• Overall economic impact: LLMs can lower marginal cost of routine IPA programming and speed development cycles, but realizing broad economic benefits requires investments in localization (RAG), multimodal data integration, robust validation, and workforce reskilling to manage safety and complexity.