Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces FaulT-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate LLM agents in network troubleshooting scenarios that reflect real-world conditions, including unreliable user tickets. The benchmark includes 200 scenarios across various network topologies, addressing genuine faults, false reports, and varying ticket qualities through persona rewrites. Key findings reveal that while agents perform well on accurate tickets, their performance significantly deteriorates with misleading or vague tickets, highlighting the critical impact of ticket wording on diagnosis accuracy.
Confidently incorrect reports can mislead LLM agents just as effectively as accurate ones, revealing a critical vulnerability in network troubleshooting AI.
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 Kathar\'a, 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.
