Skip to content
AI Atlas
PaperActive

Can AI Agents Detect and Repair Artifact Drift in Network Experiments?

arxiv.org/abs/2609.09849

quality89

Updated 4 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026

paper_01M294GMWWZ856A4DAW4JAP4N6

Published
11 Sept 2026
T1 · 4 h ago
arXiv
2609.09849
T1 · 4 h ago
Category
cs.NI
T1 · 4 h ago

As of

Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.

Claim history

9 claims · 9 properties

Official pageofficial_url1

Claim history for Official page
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09849currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Abstractabstract1

Claim history for Abstract
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
In recent years, AI agents have evolved into capable assistants that carry out multi-step tasks in digital environments. The network systems community is beginning to explore these capabilities in operational and experimental settings. However, an agent operating in network systems should not be judged solely by whether it completes the immediate task. The experiment record it modifies must also remain trustworthy. We call this property artifact integrity: the record's claims must remain supported by the available evidence, confined to the scope established by that evidence, and traceable through the artifacts that encode their support. To make this property measurable, we introduce NetArtifactBench, which tests whether AI agents can repair inconsistent records derived from public network-system artifacts while preserving claims that remain supported. The benchmark contains 52 instances with injected inconsistencies ranging from direct contradictions to unstated relations spread across several artifacts. We evaluate 23 agent configurations across three general-purpose AI agent runtimes using deterministic scoring. The average contract pass rate is 65.3 % across 5,980 outputs, but no agent runtime exceeds 30 % when repair requires recovering implicit relations and propagating changes across artifacts. These results reveal a sharp boundary between local correction and complete record-level repair. Therefore, we argue that artifact integrity should become a first-class design and evaluation requirement for AI agents operating on network systems.currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Arxiv announce typearxiv_announce_type1

Claim history for Arxiv announce type
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
crosscurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

arXiv idarxiv_id1

Claim history for arXiv id
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
2609.09849currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Authorsauthors1

Claim history for Authors
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
Tianzhu Zhang, Weichen Tao, Changgang Zheng, Yusheng Zheng, Long Chen, Xiaoyi Fan, Meikang QiucurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Categoriescategories1

Claim history for Categories
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
cs.NI, cs.AI, cs.SY, eess.SYcurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

PDFpdf_url1

Claim history for PDF
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.09849currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Primary categoryprimary_category1

Claim history for Primary category
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
cs.NIcurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Publishedpublished_at1

Claim history for Published
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
11 Sept 2026currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →