ASTRA - Agentic System for Ticket Resolution and Analysis
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28790v1
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 18:50:17 GMT
- Title: ASTRA - Agentic System for Ticket Resolution and Analysis
- Abstract summary: ASTRA is an agentic system for ticket resolution in which a central orchestrator coordinates three specialist information-gathering agents.<n>TicketSimilarityAgent retrieves relevant historical precedents through dense retrieval and LLM reranking.<n>LogAgent distills hundreds of thousands of log lines into structured, quote-grounded findings.<n> DomainKnowledgeAgent retrieves relevant technical knowledge via the Model Context Protocol.
- Score: 3.0724026668543174
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: Technical operations teams resolve large volumes of incidents by synthesizing fragmented evidence from ticket text, historical cases, system logs, and technical documentation. Existing automation often relies on monolithic generation without explicit evidence modeling or provenance, making outputs difficult to verify when critical signals are sparse across sources. We propose ASTRA, an agentic system for ticket resolution in which a central orchestrator coordinates three specialist information-gathering agents and drives a judge-orchestrator refinement loop to produce evidence-backed troubleshooting reports. TicketSimilarityAgent retrieves relevant historical precedents through dense retrieval and LLM reranking; LogAgent distills hundreds of thousands of log lines into structured, quote-grounded findings using deterministic filtering and constrained LLM analysis; and DomainKnowledgeAgent retrieves relevant technical knowledge via the Model Context Protocol (MCP). Their outputs are transformed into a claim-evidence representation linking each claim to a verbatim source passage, assigning a support level, and preventing cross-attribution. A JudgeAgent scores the report on five criteria, while the OrchestratorAgent converts low scores into targeted follow-up queries for bounded iterative refinement. Evaluated on 987 real-world telecom fault tickets across seven product lines, ASTRA achieves a mean quality score of 4.13/5.0, with 59.9% of reports identifying the fault area at the component-family level or better. Relevance and Clarity scores are 4.88 and 4.94, respectively, while fabricated technical details remain below 3% of error cases. Stratification by fault type reveals that hardware faults remain substantially harder than software or configuration faults (Cohen's d=0.80), pointing to a fundamental limitation of text-based evidence channels for hardware fault diagnosis.
Related papers
- Who is the Agent to Blame? Localizing Faithfulness and Citation Mistakes in Agentic Deep Research [75.8770212601511]
Deep research (DR) systems produce long-form cited reports by orchestrating multiple agents that search and synthesize information from the web.<n> Citations are the primary mechanism for evaluating the faithfulness of these reports, yet current DR systems exhibit poor citation recall.<n>We propose an evaluation method that pinpoints which agent introduced each error by locally testing agent invocations for faithfulness and verifiability relative to their own inputs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-08-25T09:34:18Z) - TRACE: TRajectory Attribution for Automated Context Engineering [2.332848751256598]
We present TRACE, an automated feedback loop that mines historical agent trajectories to diagnose and remediate context failures.<n>Unlike model fine-tuning, TRACE operates on the context layer, enabling rapid iteration without retraining.<n>On 60 dissatisfaction traces spanning three complexity tiers, TRACE achieves 72.7% root cause attribution and 82% end-to-end fix effectiveness.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-08-10T06:01:03Z) - SearchAuditor: Auditing and Attributing Failures in Long-Horizon Search Agents [56.400332595452966]
We introduce SearchAuditBench, a benchmark that evaluates whether auditors can localize, attribute, and repair search-agent failures.<n>SearchAuditBench comprises 1,243 failed trajectories, averaging 73.1 messages and 65.1K tokens, collected from eight open-weight models on five deep-search benchmarks.<n>We propose SearchAuditor, a multi-perspective auditing framework that effectively localizes, attributes, and repairs search-agent failures.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-08-05T09:09:00Z) - Where Do Deep-Research Agents Go Wrong? Span-Level Error Localization in Agent Trajectories [51.22051230894794]
Evaluation based on final answers shows whether an agent succeeds, but not which parts of the trajectory make the answer unreliable.<n>We collect 2,790 real trajectories from two agent frameworks, three backbone models, and three benchmarks, convert raw logs into semantic spans, and annotate harmful error spans through expert review.<n>We propose DRIFT, a claim-centric auditing framework that tracks agent claims, checks their support in trajectory evidence, and marks spans where unsupported or conflicting claims affect the answer path.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-06-01T10:50:26Z) - Towards Multi-Agent Autonomous Reasoning in Hydrodynamics [0.06999740786886537]
We present a multi-agent system (MAS) prototype for hydrodynamics in which specialized agents are coordinated through a Layer Execution Graph (LEG)<n>A planner agent constructs query-specific execution topologies from natural-language routings that capture domain knowledge without hard-coding it as rigid control logic.<n>A reporter agent synthesizes the final response, while the runtime logs provenance for every tool invocation to support auditability.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-05-01T21:17:55Z) - Dynamic analysis enhances issue resolution [53.50448142467294]
DAIRA (Dynamic Analysis-enhanced Issue Resolution Agent) is an automated repair framework that embeds dynamic analysis into the agent's reasoning cycle.<n> Driven by a Test Tracing-Driven methodology, DAIRA utilizes lightweight monitors to extract critical runtime data.<n>When powered by Gemini 3 Flash Preview, DAIRA establishes a new state-of-the-art (SOTA) performance, achieving a 79.4% resolution rate on the SWE-bench Verified dataset.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-03-23T14:48:54Z) - A Trace-Based Assurance Framework for Agentic AI Orchestration: Contracts, Testing, and Governance [0.22940141855172028]
This paper presents an assurance framework for Agentic AI systems using Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>Executions are instrumented as Message-Action Traces (MAT) with explicit step and trace contracts.<n>The framework includes stress testing, formulated as a budgeted counterexample search over bounded perturbations.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-03-18T10:23:48Z) - Arbiter: Detecting Interference in LLM Agent System Prompts [0.0]
Arbiter is a framework combining formal evaluation rules with multi-model LLM scouring to detect interference patterns in system prompts.<n> Applied to three major coding agent system prompts: Claude Code (Anthropic), Codex CLI (OpenAI), and Gemini CLI (Google)
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-03-09T22:29:47Z) - AgentRx: Diagnosing AI Agent Failures from Execution Trajectories [9.61742219198197]
We release a benchmark of 115 failed trajectories spanning structured API, incident management, and open-ended web/file tasks.<n>Each trajectory is annotated with a critical failure step and a category from a grounded-theory derived, cross-domain failure taxonomy.<n>We present AGENTRX, an automated domain-agnostic diagnostic framework that pinpoints the critical failure step in a failed agent trajectory.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-02-02T18:54:07Z) - MCP-Orchestrated Multi-Agent System for Automated Disinformation Detection [84.75972919995398]
This paper presents a multi-agent system that uses relation extraction to detect disinformation in news articles.<n>The proposed Agentic AI system combines four agents: (i) a machine learning agent (logistic regression), (ii) a Wikipedia knowledge check agent, and (iv) a web-scraped data analyzer.<n>Results demonstrate that the multi-agent ensemble achieves 95.3% accuracy with an F1 score of 0.964, significantly outperforming individual agents and traditional approaches.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-13T19:14:48Z) - Which Agent Causes Task Failures and When? On Automated Failure Attribution of LLM Multi-Agent Systems [50.29939179830491]
Failure attribution in LLM multi-agent systems remains underexplored and labor-intensive.<n>We develop and evaluate three automated failure attribution methods, summarizing their corresponding pros and cons.<n>The best method achieves 53.5% accuracy in identifying failure-responsible agents but only 14.2% in pinpointing failure steps.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-04-30T23:09:44Z)
This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.
This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.