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

TL;DR

CAX-Agent is a lightweight middleware framework designed to improve the reliability and fault recovery of MAPDL finite-element simulations driven by large language models, demonstrated through empirical evaluation of recovery strategies.

Contribution

The paper introduces CAX-Agent, a novel lightweight agent harness architecture for MAPDL automation, and empirically evaluates its recovery policy effectiveness.

Findings

Model_only recovery strategy achieves highest task completion and quality scores.

Inter-rater agreement on task scoring is strong with Cohen's kappa of 0.84.

Model_only outperforms rule_only and no_recovery strategies significantly.

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-Agent, a lightweight agent harness purpose-built for MAPDL automation, and empirically evaluates one of its core components -- the recovery policy.CAX-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.