REVIEW 1 cited by
PyRCA: A Library for Metric-based Root Cause Analysis
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
We introduce PyRCA, an open-source Python machine learning library of Root Cause Analysis (RCA) for Artificial Intelligence for IT Operations (AIOps). It provides a holistic framework to uncover the complicated metric causal dependencies and automatically locate root causes of incidents. It offers a unified interface for multiple commonly used RCA models, encompassing both graph construction and scoring tasks. This library aims to provide IT operations staff, data scientists, and researchers a one-step solution to rapid model development, model evaluation and deployment to online applications. In particular, our library includes various causal discovery methods to support causal graph construction, and multiple types of root cause scoring methods inspired by Bayesian analysis, graph analysis and causal analysis, etc. Our GUI dashboard offers practitioners an intuitive point-and-click interface, empowering them to easily inject expert knowledge through human interaction. With the ability to visualize causal graphs and the root cause of incidents, practitioners can quickly gain insights and improve their workflow efficiency. This technical report introduces PyRCA's architecture and major functionalities, while also presenting benchmark performance numbers in comparison to various baseline models. Additionally, we demonstrate PyRCA's capabilities through several example use cases.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Can LLMs Really Recover Microservice Failures? A Recovery-Aware Evaluation of Diagnosis-to-Action Reasoning
Even when RAG-based LLMs identify the right root-cause service 91–99% of the time, their recovery-action validity stays only 37–60% on a 302-incident Kubernetes benchmark.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.