跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+788新增论文
+627其中 AI 相关
+81已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-09 11:20 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-09 11:19各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-08 12:57 — 2026-11-09 12:57(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-09 11:20最近发现新增版本:2026-11-09 11:19库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-06 21:58

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

17,888 已收录论文15,288 AI 相关4,419 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-09 11:19(北京时间)
版本更新 · v3arXiv:2603.00468

Cloud-OpsBench: A Reproducible Benchmark for Agentic Root Cause Analysis in Cloud Systems

Yilun Wang, Guangba Yu, Haiyu Huang, Yujie Huang, Zirui Wang, Pengfei Chen, Michael R. Lyu

原文摘要

LLM agents are explored for automating root cause analysis (RCA) in cloud-native systems, creating a need to evaluate both diagnostic correctness and the quality of the supporting investigation. Existing static benchmarks offer repeatable inputs but limited system-facing interaction, while live testbeds expose tools but hinder controlled comparison because incident evidence varies across runs; both paradigms focus primarily on final answers. To address these limitations, we present Cloud-OpsBench, an evaluation infrastructure for interactive and evidence-grounded cloud RCA. It comprises 754 runtime-verified cases across 57 fault types on two microservice workloads spanning application services and Kubernetes platform layers. Each fault is captured as a state snapshot and replayed through standard diagnostic interfaces, with outcome labels and diagnostic evidence graphs that enable matched comparisons and process-level analysis. Evaluating eleven LLMs on Cloud-OpsBench reveals that strong outcome accuracy often masks incomplete investigations: while Joint RCA Accuracy (JRA) reaches up to 0.78 on OnlineBoutique and 0.68 on TrainTicket, models identify the correct root cause without achieving evidence closure (e.g., in 33.1% and 29.4% of evaluated cases for GPT-5). These results demonstrate that final-answer accuracy alone cannot establish whether an agent has traced the failure and collected the evidence needed to confirm its root cause.

cs.SE