AI Agent Reliability

MOOSEnger is a modeling and simulation AI agent framework for the Multiphysics Object-Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE) ecosystem, built around a simulation-aware harness that combines an interchangeable reasoning model with grounded domain knowledge, revised simulation artifacts, MOOSE-specific validation, and executable solver feedback. This surrounding system addresses a central limitation of one-shot large language model generation: small syntax, schema, reference, or solver-configuration errors can prevent a plausible input from executing, while successful execution alone does not establish scientific correctness. MOOSEnger's simulation-aware harness integrates MOOSE knowledge retrieval, Hierarchical Input Text (HIT)-aware parsing, syntax metadata, language-server diagnostics, revision-controlled authoring, and local or MCP-backed validation and execution in a generate-check-repair-run workflow that binds evidence to each input revision and guides bounded repair before acceptance. Across 200 prompts spanning eight simulation families, the MOOSEnger harness increases executable success from 10/200 (5%) to 179/200 (89.5%) with GPT 5.2 API and from 0/200 to 153/200 (76.5%) with Gemma 4 31B. A complementary ten-case Method of Manufactured Solutions benchmark moves beyond executability: all ten generated inputs satisfy the semantic-alignment criterion, and eight execute successfully while meeting the prescribed single-mesh numerical-accuracy criterion. These results show that executable reliability depends on the complete agent system rather than on the reasoning model alone, and that simulation-aware harnessing provides a path toward physics-informed verification and future full application-level and engineering verification and validation implementation.

Running the same LLM agent on identical inputs yields 2.3-4.2 distinct action sequences per 10 runs; this behavioral variance constitutes a training-free, black-box uncertainty signal that instantiates selective classification and distribution-free calibration for agentic systems. Across 8,000 runs of four models on 200 HotpotQA questions, consistent tasks (at most 2 unique paths) achieve 82-87% accuracy while inconsistent tasks (4 or more paths) achieve 41-65%, a gap that survives controls for task difficulty. Divergence concentrates at step 2 (50.5% of Llama tasks), and consistency metrics detect failures with AUROC 0.62-0.78. Exploiting this signal, selective prediction (answering only when k=3 runs agree) achieves 87-88% accuracy at 54-62% coverage, a 6-14pp gain over single-run baselines, and matches a split-conformal baseline without a held-out calibration set. A cross-benchmark validation on SWE-bench (50 tasks, 1,000 runs) preserves the consistency hierarchy while revealing an ~8x spread in mean trajectory length across models, and bootstrap analysis shows single-run evaluations misrank models 29.3% of the time.

In agentic search, an LLM agent searches the web, reads the pages it finds, and decides what to look for next before returning an answer. But can we trust an answer simply because the agent returns it? Often not, and even a correct answer can be a lucky guess: on questions with several constraints, we find that agents conclude the task is complete while a constraint remains unverified in up to 48% of their correct answers. We call this illusory completion. To see how it arises, we introduce the Epistemic Ledger, which tracks at every turn what the retrieved pages establish about each constraint and what the agent claims. Across 13 agents, from 7B RL-trained models to frontier LLMs, training and scale raise accuracy but change the pattern of verification failures rather than eliminating them: constraints may be left unchecked, assumed without support, or retained despite refuting evidence. To measure what agents lose without tracking their constraints, we show them each constraint's state, approximated by LiveLedger, a lightweight 4B tracker. Agents then answer 4.4-16.1 points more questions correctly, suggesting that on their own, they may not track what they have verified and what remains.

AI agents often fail in ways that are difficult to localize because executions are probabilistic, long-horizon, multi-agent, and mediated by noisy tool outputs. We address this gap by manually annotating failed agent runs and release a novel benchmark of 170 trajectories across 11 diverse task settings, including structured API workflows, incident management, and open-ended web/file tasks. Each trajectory is annotated with a critical failure step and a category from a grounded-theory derived, cross-domain failure taxonomy. To mitigate the human cost of failure attribution, we present AgentRx, an $\textit{automated diagnostic framework}$ that pinpoints the critical failure step in a failed agent trajectory. It synthesizes constraints, evaluates them step-by-step, and produces an auditable validation log of constraint violations with associated evidence; an LLM-based judge uses this log to localize the critical step and category. AgentRx improves step localization by 75% on average over prior work, while providing failure category attribution.

Tool-using agents can repeat a final decision while changing their recorded execution. We introduce the Determinism-Faithfulness Assurance Harness (DFAH), a framework that distinguishes decision repeatability, trajectory agreement, and evidence-conditioned faithfulness. Task correctness requires separately qualified labels and evaluation; evidence-conditioned faithfulness was not evaluated in the historical v2 agentic experiments. The original v2 study reported 4,705 agentic runs in three synthetic financial tasks and a decision-determinism/task-label-match correlation of r = -0.11 across 21 model-benchmark configuration summaries. This statistic is reproducible from the historical configuration table, but includes a subsequently excluded portfolio fixture. It is retained as a historical description, not evidence of statistical independence, predictive uselessness, or an architectural determinism-accuracy tradeoff. Recorded decision concentration and tool-path variation do not identify hidden model strategy. This correction qualifies the historical evidence and removes the deployment recommendations derived from those unsupported interpretations. A separate corrected study, DFAH-Bench (arXiv:2607.20491), provides qualified evidence of decision/path disagreement. The contribution retained here is a measurement framework: repeatability, observable execution, evidence alignment, and correctness require distinct evidence, with explicit capture and study boundaries.