Can large language models automate the HAZOP process without human intervention?

• Evaluates GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, LLAMA 3.2, and Gemini 2.0 for automated HAZOP studies. • Assesses LLMs using semantic similarity, cost, scenario validity, and safeguard diversity. • Finds high textual similarity but limited validity (19–37%) in generated accident scenarios. • Safeguards generated are mostly procedural, lacking design-level interventions. • Concludes LLMs serve as supportive tools, not full replacements for expert-led HAZOP. This study investigates whether state-of-the-art multimodal large language models (LLMs) can autonomously perform the entire Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOP) process without human intervention. Four LLMs—GPT4o, GPT4o-mini, LLAMA, and Gemini—were utilized to generate automatic HAZOP worksheets spanning dozens of pages from an identical piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) using a standardized prompt. Their outputs were benchmarked against an expert-prepared refence worksheet and evaluated along two key aspects: (1) model performance, measured by similarity and computational cost and (2) HAZOP performance, measured by the validity of generated scenario and the diversity of safeguards. The results showed that all four LLMs achieved high similarity scores to the reference (F1 scores > 86 %). LLAMA was the most cost-efficient ($0.011 per worksheet), while Gemini generated the greatest number of scenarios (34.3 per worksheet) and safeguards (1.79 per deviation). This study presents a structured framework for evaluating LLMs in HAZOP and highlights their potential as assistive tools in the process safety field. However, key limitations were observed. The proportion of semantically valid scenarios remained low (0.19 to 0.37), and safeguards were heavily biased toward procedural measures, indicating limited diversity in risk-mitigation strategies. To enhance the reliability and practicability of LLM-based HAZOP studies, future research should focus on advanced prompt engineering, domain-specific fine-tuning, and improved reasoning capabilities.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Safety Science
Published
2025-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2025.107039
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Occupational Health and Safety Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.54
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Can large language models automate the HAZOP process without human intervention?

Sunhwa Park, Byung-Chol Ma, Junseo Lee, S. J. Oh
1 citations
Safety Science
Occupational Health and Safety Research
1.54
article

Can large language models automate the HAZOP process without human intervention?

Sunhwa Park, Byung-Chol Ma, Junseo Lee, S. J. Oh
article en
1 citations

Abstract

• Evaluates GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, LLAMA 3.2, and Gemini 2.0 for automated HAZOP studies. • Assesses LLMs using semantic similarity, cost, scenario validity, and safeguard diversity. • Finds high textual similarity but limited validity (19–37%) in generated accident scenarios. • Safeguards generated are mostly procedural, lacking design-level interventions. • Concludes LLMs serve as supportive tools, not full replacements for expert-led HAZOP. This study investigates whether state-of-the-art multimodal large language models (LLMs) can autonomously perform the entire Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOP) process without human intervention. Four LLMs—GPT4o, GPT4o-mini, LLAMA, and Gemini—were utilized to generate automatic HAZOP worksheets spanning dozens of pages from an identical piping and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) using a standardized prompt. Their outputs were benchmarked against an expert-prepared refence worksheet and evaluated along two key aspects: (1) model performance, measured by similarity and computational cost and (2) HAZOP performance, measured by the validity of generated scenario and the diversity of safeguards. The results showed that all four LLMs achieved high similarity scores to the reference (F1 scores > 86 %). LLAMA was the most cost-efficient ($0.011 per worksheet), while Gemini generated the greatest number of scenarios (34.3 per worksheet) and safeguards (1.79 per deviation). This study presents a structured framework for evaluating LLMs in HAZOP and highlights their potential as assistive tools in the process safety field. However, key limitations were observed. The proportion of semantically valid scenarios remained low (0.19 to 0.37), and safeguards were heavily biased toward procedural measures, indicating limited diversity in risk-mitigation strategies. To enhance the reliability and practicability of LLM-based HAZOP studies, future research should focus on advanced prompt engineering, domain-specific fine-tuning, and improved reasoning capabilities.

Safety ScienceVol. 194
Chonnam National University (KR), King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (SA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Occupational Health and Safety Research
1.54
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.