CAX-Agent: A Lightweight Agent Harness for Reliable APDL Automation
arXiv AIArchived 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?)