EnergyBridge shows that agents combining household preference modeling and physics-driven control substantially raise simulated household consent and convert residential flexibility into more reliable, deliverable grid capacity; its LLM-based user simulator matches human role-play acceptance rates with a 5.3‑point mean absolute error.

Main Finding

EnergyBridge is an end-to-end benchmark and agent that links VPP requests, household authorization, and physics-based execution. By combining EnergyPlus building simulations (Tianjin, Berlin) with an LLM-based, human-calibrated User Participation Simulator and a retrieval-augmented, memory-enabled agent, EnergyBridge produces substantially higher simulated household authorization and more reliable pre-event capacity reporting than conventional controllers and prior agent baselines — and it quantifies the gaps between physically feasible, authorized, and delivered flexibility.

Key Points

• End-to-end task and metrics: the benchmark requires methods to (1) report pre-event reliable capacity, (2) generate a feasible household plan, (3) obtain household authorization, (4) execute only authorized plans (or fallback), and (5) verify delivered capacity. It distinguishes three quantities: physical capacity (C_phys), authorized capacity (C_auth = sum α_i F_phys), and delivered capacity (C_del = sum η_i α_i F_phys).
• Agent design: EnergyBridge agent uses a two-level memory (profile + episodic event history), treats conventional controllers as callable skills, personalizes candidate plans and explanations, and issues retrieval-based capacity reports from k-nearest historical events.
• User modeling: household personas are 6-dimensional (schedule, comfort, task, price, control/autonomy trust, grid willingness). An LLM-based User Participation Simulator produces accept/conditional/reject labels and structured feedback; it was validated against human role-play.
• Human calibration & validity: 584 persona- and event-matched human role-play responses were collected. The LLM-based simulator preserves method ordering and achieves a mean absolute acceptance error of 5.3 percentage points vs humans.
• Empirical performance (main matrix): five households × two regions × seven days × five methods → 350 episodes per region.
  • EnergyBridge produced the highest simulated household acceptance and mean post-event household score, lowest VPP-window energy, and 100% modeled task completion.
  • Compared to the HEMA agent baseline, simulated acceptance gaps: +40.0 percentage points (Tianjin) and +42.9 pp (Berlin).
  • Event-window energy reductions vs HEMA: 35.2% (Tianjin) and 23.4% (Berlin).
• Baselines: HEMA (multi-agent assistant), MPC Dynamic, Rule+MILP scheduler, and PPO-based DRL controller.
• Reproducibility: authors release code, the user simulation data, EnergyPlus environments, and human evaluation data (GitHub repo linked in paper).

Data & Methods

• Physical simulation: EnergyPlus 25.1, region-specific building envelopes per GB 50176-2016 (Tianjin) and DIN 4108-4 (Berlin). Simulation timestep: 10 minutes (6 per hour). Simulated devices: HVAC, EV charging, electric water heater, washer, dryer, dishwasher, base (non-controllable) load. Regional inputs include typical-year EPW (Tianjin) and 2025 observations/prices (Berlin).
• User Participation Simulator: persona-conditioned LLM prompts based on six behavioral dimensions; outputs per-member acceptance probabilities, response labels, and structured revision feedback. Acceptance probabilites aggregated to household decision via reproducible draw.
• Capacity reporting: retrieval-augmented estimator—selects k most-similar past events (matched by region, household type, event timing, pre-event load, weather, devices, schedule) and uses baseline-adjusted historical deliveries to form an empirical pre-event report.
• Evaluation data: matched human role-play (n=584) used to calibrate/validate simulator; main experiment crosses households/regions/days/methods producing 350 episodes (per region aggregation).
• Metrics: simulated gate acceptance rate (A = N_accepted / N_events), post-event household scores (1–5), VPP-window energy (event-window load metrics), event-authorized capacity vs realized delivered capacity, task completion rates, and safety/comfort outcomes.

Implications for AI Economics

• Authorization uncertainty matters economically: technically available flexibility (F_phys) does not equal marketed or realizable capacity. Markets and procurement that ignore α (authorization probability) and η (realization factor) will overstate supply and expose system operators to shortfall penalties and higher residual procurement costs.
• Valuation and contracting: VPP offers, bids, and settlement rules should condition payments and obligations on authorized vs realized delivery. Contracts can explicitly price reliability (e.g., guaranteed vs expected capacity) and incorporate household-level acceptance risk into bids and reserve procurement decisions.
• Market design and incentives: personalized offers, explanation-driven consent, and tailored incentives (monetary or non-monetary) can increase α and η; benchmarking agents that incorporate household preferences may reduce reserve procurement costs. EnergyBridge demonstrates an operational path for estimating reliable capacity ex ante, enabling more precise procurement and pricing.
• Aggregation does not eliminate systematic behavioral risk: even with many households, shared weather, routines, and comfort constraints produce correlated authorization risk. Economists and market designers should model behavioral correlation explicitly (not rely solely on statistical diversification).
• Role of LLM-based simulators in policy and cost analysis: calibrated LLM simulators allow scalable scenario testing for policy/regulatory design and mechanism evaluation, but human calibration remains essential to bound simulator error (~5.3 pp MAE observed). Regulators should require validation against human data when using such simulators for economic decisions.
• Welfare and distributional concerns: personalization and consent-based automation can improve social welfare by reducing unwanted discomfort (increasing household utility) and lowering grid costs, but differentiated offers may raise fairness/privacy issues (who gets better terms, data use consent).
• Implementation risks and regulatory needs: privacy (household data & memory), potential manipulation (gaming acceptance or historical records), and consumer protection (clear consent, opt-outs) must be addressed in deployment and market integration.

Practical recommendations for researchers and policymakers: - Incorporate authorization and realization uncertainty into capacity valuation models and reserve-setting. - Use human-calibrated, persona-conditioned simulators for large-scale policy experiments, with periodic re-calibration against field data. - Design contracts that pay for different reliability grades (firm vs expected capacity) and create incentives to increase α (e.g., reputation, dynamic payments, improved explanations). - Mandate transparency and auditability for automated household agents (memory use, personalization rules, fallback behavior).

Repository/resources: authors release code, physical models, and human evaluation data (link in paper).