aiqbench analysis
This systematic review finds that while Large Language Models show promise for semantic tasks like normalizing point names and assisting building energy modeling workflows, they are not yet ready for autonomous HVAC control. The analysis indicates that conventional machine learning and physics-based controllers remain superior for high-frequency operational decisions, positioning LLMs strictly as supportive layers rather than primary actuators in critical infrastructure. Future deployment must prioritize human-in-the-loop architectures with verifiable safety properties before scaling to broader industry adoption.
Large Language Models for HVAC Operations in Building Energy Systems: A Critical Review of Methods, Applications, and Deployment Readiness
arXiv:2609.05314v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Building automation systems generate rich sensor data yet remain insight-poor because heterogeneous point naming, missing metadata, and fragmented documentation obstruct their operational use. This systematic review analyses and codes 66 peer-reviewed studies on large language models (LLMs) for HVAC operations published between 2023 and March 2026. Each study is classified across five application families and three LLM method families and assessed for evidence realism, deployment readiness, and the responsibility boundary between the LLM and physical HVAC decisions. The corpus is concentrated in building energy modelling (BEM, 32 of 66 papers), while load forecasting remains too sparse for subfield-level conclusions. Only four studies reach pilot-level evidence, and none reports sustained operational deployment. No study was classified as ready-now for industry adoption; three were near-term and 63 research-only. Nevertheless, several bounded, human-in-the-loop uses merit near-term trials, including point-name normalisation, document-grounded operator support, BEM workflow assistance, and advisory interfaces around physics-based controllers. Conventional machine learning (ML), model predictive control (MPC), reinforcement learning (RL) and ontology-based tools remain more adopted for high-frequency control, short-horizon numerical forecasting, and well-posed ontology mapping, while autonomous agentic operation and unvalidated occupant proxies remain research-stage. Current evidence therefore supports LLMs primarily as semantic and workflow layers rather than autonomous HVAC controllers. Future work should prioritise field-validated benchmarks, orchestration evaluation under operational constraints, and LLM-MPC/RL architectures with bounded latency and verifiable safety properties.
Abstract:Building automation systems generate rich sensor data yet remain insight-poor because heterogeneous point naming, missing metadata, and fragmented documentation obstruct their operational use. This systematic review analyses and codes 66 peer-reviewed studies on large language models (LLMs) for HVAC operations published between 2023 and March 2026. Each study is classified across five application families and three LLM method families and assessed for evidence realism, deployment readiness, and the responsibility boundary between the LLM and physical HVAC decisions. The corpus is concentrated in building energy modelling (BEM, 32 of 66 papers), while load forecasting remains too sparse for subfield-level conclusions. Only four studies reach pilot-level evidence, and none reports sustained operational deployment. No study was classified as ready-now for industry adoption; three were near-term and 63 research-only. Nevertheless, several bounded, human-in-the-loop uses merit near-term trials, including point-name normalisation, document-grounded operator support, BEM workflow assistance, and advisory interfaces around physics-based controllers. Conventional machine learning (ML), model predictive control (MPC), reinforcement learning (RL) and ontology-based tools remain more adopted for high-frequency control, short-horizon numerical forecasting, and well-posed ontology mapping, while autonomous agentic operation and unvalidated occupant proxies remain research-stage. Current evidence therefore supports LLMs primarily as semantic and workflow layers rather than autonomous HVAC controllers. Future work should prioritise field-validated benchmarks, orchestration evaluation under operational constraints, and LLM-MPC/RL architectures with bounded latency and verifiable safety properties.
38 pages, 9 figures, 16 tables. Submitted to Energy and Buildings
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Systems and Control (eess.SY)
A.1; I.2.7; I.2.1; J.7
arXiv:2609.05314 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.05314v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.05314 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 340 words
