The paper introduces NetArtifactBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate whether AI agents can detect and repair inconsistencies in network experiment records while preserving supported claims. It tests 23 agent configurations on 52 instances with injected inconsistencies, finding an average pass rate of 65.3 % but no runtime exceeding 30 % for complex repairs that require recovering implicit relations and propagating changes across artifacts. The results highlight a clear distinction between local corrections and full record-level repair, leading the authors to argue that artifact integrity should be a primary design and evaluation criterion for AI agents in network systems.
arXiv:2610.16333v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As AI agents increasingly act through external tools, tool results are no longer simple outputs but execution artifacts that must remain correctly asso...
FaulT-Bench is a new benchmark comprising 200 network troubleshooting scenarios across eight topologies, designed to test large‑language‑model agents on realistic, noisy tickets that may contain false premises or incorrect fault claims. The benchmark includes 72 rewritten tickets that vary reporter confidence and detail, and evaluates agents via an automated harness that scores diagnoses on outcome, fix, and reasoning quality. Results show that while agents perform well on accurate tickets, they degrade sharply on healthy networks with misleading reports, highlighting the importance of ticket wording over content.
arXiv:2608. 12002v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agents are increasingly considered for automating network operations and maintenance, where engineers must diagnose network faults, optimize configurations to enhance services, and reduce operational costs while acting under strict constraints.
arXiv:2609.14422v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic Network Operations (NetOps) are an emerging paradigm promising to enable workload-aware, self-adjustable, and reliable autonomous networks. Whi...
FaulT-Bench is a new benchmark comprising 200 network troubleshooting scenarios across eight topologies, designed to test large‑language‑model agents on realistic, noisy user tickets that may contain false premises or incorrect fault claims. The benchmark includes 72 rewritten tickets that vary reporter confidence and detail while keeping the network state constant, allowing isolation of the impact of ticket wording on diagnosis. Evaluation of agents such as SADE, ReAct, and Claude Code shows they perform well on accurate tickets but degrade sharply on misleading or healthy‑network tickets, revealing differing failure modes and highlighting the importance of robust reasoning over unreliable input.
The paper "Signals: Continuous Diagnostics of AI Agents" introduces a method for diagnosing problems in AI agents by analyzing agentic traces. It defines 45 problem types across eight families, categorizes findings into engineering issues called Signals, and assesses their severity. The method was evaluated on public agent executions, achieving a 91.43% F1 score in matching Signals to reference issues, outperforming a one-pass LLM control by about 18 percentage points.
AgentEval is a system that tracks a contract-bound assessment record throughout a stateful agent’s tool execution, capturing state, events, and evidence to determine whether obligations are satisfied, violated, or unresolved. In 32 tool‑world administrations, independent checks confirmed all 30 complete episodes, while controlled interventions on 48 evidence views uncovered 36 binding faults that hash‑only checks missed. A public‑benchmark study on 192 held‑out executions identified ten completed subgoals within broader task failures and highlighted the impact of missing evidence on overall task success.
The paper introduces rebuild‑dossier, an open‑source tool that locks an application’s real interface before code is written and enforces one‑test‑at‑a‑time building through automated checks. In experiments, a compliant agent failed a held‑back test while a rule‑breaking agent passed, showing that a passing test suite can be gamed. The study also demonstrates that the automated check mechanism, rather than interface‑locking alone, is crucial for reliable rebuilds, and that multi‑level verification catches errors that single‑level checks miss.
The paper introduces Traverse, a benchmark of 2,518 agent trajectories and 6,967 annotated mistakes across software engineering, computer use, and science tasks, revealing that failures often go unrecovered and can cause irreversible harm before a run is deemed successful. It shows that human judges struggle to detect the first mistake in most runs, while a 4‑billion‑parameter verifier called Scout can locate failures more effectively and improve task success when used to select among candidate runs. The study demonstrates that making failure detection inexpensive and reliable can enable long‑horizon agents to learn from their own mistakes and increase trustworthiness in autonomous AI.
arXiv:2607. 11098v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool-using LLM agents are mostly evaluated assuming all tools work.
arXiv:2608. 03499v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent advances in persistent personal-agent frameworks are making human-centered agent networks realistic deployment targets: each user can be served by an AI agent that acts on the user's behalf, maintains state, and communicates with other agents through social and task relations.
arXiv:2610.15459v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based multi-agent systems (LLM-MAS) use specialized agents that exchange messages to accomplish complex tasks. Their reliance on networked protoc...