ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Large Language Models in Sensor-Driven Control Systems: Architectures, Challenges, and Opportunities.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for integration into sensor-driven control systems across robotics, industrial automation, energy infrastructure, healthcare, smart environments, and other sensor-rich domains. This review synthesizes emerging research from the perspective of sensor-driven control systems, defined as systems in which sensing is substantively linked to monitoring, estimation, supervision, planning, decision-making, or actuation. Rather than treating LLMs as generic intelligent agents, the review examines their position within the sensing-decision-control chain and their interaction with state representations, supervisory logic, human operators, external tools, and classical control components. The paper develops a functional taxonomy of LLM roles based on proximity to actuation, grounding requirements, and deployment risk. This taxonomy reveals a clear maturity gradient: interpretive, supervisory, diagnostic, and engineering-support roles are currently the most credible and deployable, whereas runtime control participation remains the least mature and highest-risk form of integration. The analysis further shows that reliable implementations are predominantly hybrid. In such architectures, LLMs function as semantic and orchestration layers that augment, rather than replace, classical sensing, estimation, planning, and control. Key integration patterns include sensor-to-semantics pipelines, retrieval-augmented generation, tool use, agentic workflows, closed-loop refinement, and safety-aware mechanisms. Persistent challenges-including hallucination, weak physical grounding, latency, cybersecurity risks, and the lack of formal guarantees-highlight the need for rigorous operational evaluation and realistic benchmarks. The review concludes that LLMs are most credible as interpretive, supervisory, diagnostic, and human-facing intelligence layers embedded within hybrid architectures. Future progress will depend on deeper neuro-symbolic integration, efficient local deployment, human-centered autonomy, and stronger evaluation practices that preserve the strengths of classical control engineering while extending them with semantic reasoning and supervisory intelligence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.