arXiv subjects

Aoyang Fang

Publications and source records attributed to Aoyang Fang.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Beyond Fault Localization: A Trajectory-Level Study of LLM Agents for Microservice Root Cause Analysis

Existing evaluations of automated root cause analysis (RCA) for microservices assess diagnostic performance mainly by endpoint correctness: whether a method localizes the responsible service. This criterion enables comparison but does not reveal the evidentiary basis of a diagnosis or the fault-propagation route connecting the source to observed symptoms, both of which an on-call site reliability engineer needs to judge whether action is warranted. We therefore treat RCA as an observable diagnostic process. Our trajectory-level framework evaluates agent executions against manually curated service-level fault-propagation paths. Applied to a public microservice RCA benchmark, it analyzes 3,500 diagnostic trajectories, characterizing where agents investigate and how they use retrieved telemetry. We find a disconnect between answer correctness and diagnostic quality: an agent may localize the fault source yet fail to reconstruct its propagation. Successful investigations stay on the fault-impact surface, act on retrieved evidence, and broaden their query repertoire as the search deepens. Failures arise when decisive evidence is omitted, retrieved evidence is misinterpreted, or unsupported inference substitutes for missing evidence. We operationalize this taxonomy as DiagGuard, a two-stage defense-in-depth architecture in which grounding surveys available observations before localization and verification audits the diagnosis against them. In an independent setting with a different model, benchmark, and service topology, DiagGuard raises Acc@1 from 43.5% to 52.5%. These results show that trajectory-level evaluation exposes limitations hidden by final-answer metrics and provides actionable guidance for improving automated RCA.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

OpenRCA 2.0: From Outcome Labels to Causal Process Supervision

Root cause analysis (RCA) poses a holistic test of LLM agentic capabilities, such as long-context understanding, multi-step reasoning, and tool use. However, existing datasets suffer from a fundamental gap: they label only the root cause, not the propagation path connecting it to the observed symptom, which largely simplifies the task to naive pattern matching. To support rigorous evaluation, we introduce PAVE, a step-wise labeling protocol that leverages known interventions from fault injection to reconstruct causal propagation paths. The mechanism is forward verification: reasoning from cause to effect rather than inferring backward from symptoms. Applying PAVE yields OpenRCA 2.0 (500 instances), the first cross-system RCA benchmark with step-wise causal annotations for LLM agents. Across 11 frontier LLMs, recovering the exact root-cause set succeeds in only 20.7% of cases on average. To locate where this difficulty lies, we relax the criterion and find what we call the ungrounded diagnosis: agents identify at least one correct root-cause service in 76.0% of cases, but ground that service in a verified causal propagation path to the observed symptom in only 61.5%. Outcome-only evaluation hides this failure mode; step-wise causal ground truth is the missing piece for trustworthy LLM-based RCA agents.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

DynaCausal: Dynamic Causality-Aware Root Cause Analysis for Distributed Microservices

Cloud-native microservices enable rapid iteration and scalable deployment but also create complex, fast-evolving dependencies that challenge reliable diagnosis. Existing root cause analysis (RCA) approaches, even with multi-modal fusion of logs, traces, and metrics, remain limited in capturing dynamic behaviors and shifting service relationships. Three critical challenges persist: (i) inadequate modeling of cascading fault propagation, (ii) vulnerability to noise interference and concept drift in normal service behavior, and (iii) over-reliance on service deviation intensity that obscures true root causes. To address these challenges, we propose DynaCausal, a dynamic causality-aware framework for RCA in distributed microservice systems. DynaCausal unifies multi-modal dynamic signals to capture time-varying spatio-temporal dependencies through interaction-aware representation learning. It further introduces a dynamic contrastive mechanism to disentangle true fault indicators from contextual noise and adopts a causal-prioritized pairwise ranking objective to explicitly optimize causal attribution. Comprehensive evaluations on public benchmarks demonstrate that DynaCausal consistently surpasses state-of-the-art methods, attaining an average AC@1 of 0.63 with absolute gains from 0.25 to 0.46, and delivering both accurate and interpretable diagnoses in highly dynamic microservice environments.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

A Goal-Driven Survey on Root Cause Analysis

Root Cause Analysis (RCA) is a crucial aspect of incident management in large-scale cloud services. While the term root cause analysis or RCA has been widely used, different studies formulate the task differently. This is because the term "RCA" implicitly covers tasks with distinct underlying goals. For instance, the goal of localizing a faulty service for rapid triage is fundamentally different from identifying a specific functional bug for a definitive fix. However, previous surveys have largely overlooked these goal-based distinctions, conventionally categorizing papers by input data types (e.g., metric-based vs. trace-based methods). This leads to the grouping of works with disparate objectives, thereby obscuring the true progress and gaps in the field. Meanwhile, the typical audience of an RCA survey is either laymen who want to know the goals and big picture of the task or RCA researchers who want to figure out past research under the same task formulation. Thus, an RCA survey that organizes the related papers according to their goals is in high demand. To this end, this paper presents a goal-driven framework that effectively categorizes and integrates 135 papers on RCA in the context of cloud incident management based on their diverse goals, spanning the period from 2014 to 2025. In addition to the goal-driven categorization, it discusses the ultimate goal of all RCA papers as an umbrella covering different RCA formulations. Moreover, the paper discusses open challenges and future directions in RCA.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Rethinking the Evaluation of Microservice RCA with a Fault Propagation-Aware Benchmark

While cloud-native microservice architectures have revolutionized software development, their inherent operational complexity makes failure Root Cause Analysis (RCA) a critical yet challenging task. Numerous data-driven RCA models have been proposed to address this challenge. However, we find that the benchmarks used to evaluate these models are often too simple to reflect real-world scenarios. Our preliminary study reveals that simple rule-based methods can achieve performance comparable to or even surpassing state-of-the-art (SOTA) models on four widely used public benchmarks. This finding suggests that the oversimplification of existing benchmarks might lead to an overestimation of the performance of RCA methods. To further investigate the oversimplification issue, we conduct a systematic analysis of popular public RCA benchmarks, identifying key limitations in their fault injection strategies, call graph structures, and telemetry signal patterns. Based on these insights, we propose an automated framework for generating more challenging and comprehensive benchmarks that include complex fault propagation scenarios. Our new dataset contains 1,430 validated failure cases from 9,152 fault injections, covering 25 fault types across 6 categories, dynamic workloads, and hierarchical ground-truth labels that map failures from services down to code-level causes. Crucially, to ensure the failure cases are relevant to IT operations, each case is validated to have a discernible impact on user-facing SLIs. Our re-evaluation of 11 SOTA models on this new benchmark shows that they achieve low Top@1 accuracies, averaging 0.21, with the best-performing model reaching merely 0.37, and execution times escalating from seconds to hours.

cs.SE↗