CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning May 18, 2026

CAX-Agent: A Lightweight Agent Harness for Reliable APDL Automation

arXiv AI Archived May 18, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2605.15218v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models deployed for MAPDL finite-element simulation face practical reliability challenges: without structured execution control, tool encapsulation, and fault recovery, outputs may be inconsistent and task failures are common. The Agent Harness paradigm addresses this by inserting domain-specific orchestration middleware that manages tool lifecycles, workflow state, and recovery escalation. This paper presents the architecture of CAX

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Artificial Intelligence [Submitted on 12 May 2026] CAX-Agent: A Lightweight Agent Harness for Reliable APDL Automation Chenying Lin, Yichen Hai, Yi He, Ran Wang, Haiyan Qiang, Liang Yu Large language models deployed for MAPDL finite-element simulation face practical reliability challenges: without structured execution control, tool encapsulation, and fault recovery, outputs may be inconsistent and task failures are common. The Agent Harness paradigm addresses this by inserting domain-specific orchestration middleware that manages tool lifecycles, workflow state, and recovery escalation. This paper presents the architecture of CAX-Agent, a lightweight agent harness purpose-built for MAPDL automation, and empirically evaluates one of its core components -- the recovery this http URL-Agent organizes execution into three layers -- LLM service, agent harness, and solver backend -- with a recovery ladder that escalates from deterministic rule patching through model-driven regeneration to context enrichment and human intervention. We evaluate three recovery strategies (no_recovery, rule_only, and model_only) on 50 standard structural benchmarks with three repeated runs per strategy (450 case-runs total). Two independent human raters score task completion under blind conditions; inter-rater agreement is strong (quadratic weighted Cohen's kappa = 0.84, 96 percent of score pairs within one point). Model_only achieves the best completion rate (0.9267), task score (3.59/4), total score (9.16/10), and zero-intervention rate (0.84), outperforming rule_only (0.7733, 3.17/4, 7.03/10, 0.00) and no_recovery (0.6933, 2.74/4, 5.60/10, 0.00) with large effect sizes (Cliff's delta = 0.81-0.87). The benchmark uses deliberately simple geometries to isolate recovery-policy effects; we discuss the scope of these findings and directions for broader validation. Comments: 8 pages, 6 figures, IEEE conference format Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computational Engineering, Finance, and Science (cs.CE) Cite as: arXiv:2605.15218 [cs.AI]   (or arXiv:2605.15218v1 [cs.AI] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.15218 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Yichen Hai [view email] [v1] Tue, 12 May 2026 14:46:34 UTC (1,699 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.AI < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-05 Change to browse by: cs cs.CE References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    May 18, 2026
    Archived
    May 18, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗