NetConfArena: An Executable Benchmark for LLM Agents in Closed-Loop Network Configuration

As agentic network management gains popularity, there is a critical need for evaluation frameworks that transcend static, one-shot testing. To address this, we introduce NetAgentBench, a dynamic benchmark that evaluates agent interactions through a Finite State Machine (FSM) formalization guaranteeing determinism, correctness, and bounded execution. This provides the networking landscape with a rigorous foundation to measure complex, multi-turn operational behaviors. Our empirical evaluation of four state-of-the-art LLM agents through diverse network configuration tasks reveals stark deficiencies: while agents can solve basic tasks, they suffer severe exploration meltdowns and coherence collapse during expert-level configurations. Ultimately, NetAgentBench demonstrates that systematically evaluating multi-turn behavioral stability is an indispensable step toward realizing trustworthy, fully autonomous networks.

Misconfigurations in computer networks remain a major source of critical Internet outages. Research is turning to Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the complex, error-prone task of network configuration. However, even state-of-the-art models fail to resolve misconfigurations in large-scale, complex scenarios and often introduce new errors. In this work, we benchmark open- and closed-source LLMs augmented with formal network verification and context retrieval tools. We demonstrate that agentic architectures outperform base LLMs in repair efficacy (by 12% on average) and safety (by 17% on average), enabled by the ability to dynamically manage context and iteratively validate configuration repairs.

LLM-based agents are increasingly proposed for network fault diagnosis, but existing benchmarks evaluate them only on accurate tickets and always assume a fault is present, conditions rarely met in practice. We present FaulT-Bench, a benchmark of 200 troubleshooting scenarios across eight network topologies, five reimplemented from public practitioner labs, spanning genuine faults, false fault reports, incorrect device attribution, and incorrect root-cause claims. To isolate how ticket wording affects diagnosis, we further rewrite 72 false-premise tickets into five reporter personas that vary reporter confidence and verifiable detail one factor at a time, holding the network state fixed. Our automated harness deploys each scenario in Kathará, lets agents interact through the NIKA tool interface, and scores free-text diagnoses with an LLM judge across outcome, fix, and reasoning quality. Evaluating SADE, ReAct, and Claude Code, we find all three are near-saturated on accurate tickets and robust to misdirection, yet degrade sharply when the network is healthy and the ticket is wrong, probing until a benign condition can be promoted to a root cause rather than concluding nothing is wrong. Persona rewrites show that how a ticket is written matters more than what it claims: a confidently wrong report is handled about as well as an accurate one, while a vague, underspecified report degrades performance sharply. The three agents also fail differently, from constant over-diagnosis to unanswered runs, at very different cost. These results position FaulT-Bench as a benchmark for developing agentic systems that can reason reliably over the noisy, unreliable tickets of real-world network troubleshooting.