Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

FaaSRCA: Full Lifecycle Root Cause Analysis for Serverless Applications

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read FaaSRCA locates serverless root causes at the lifecycle-stage level by merging platform and application traces into a single graph, achieving 91.54% HR@k on two benchmarks.

desk verdict Good problem framing, but the node identity gap in the graph construction makes the headline results unverifiable as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02239 v1 pith:6S6CL3W3 submitted 2024-12-03 cs.SE

Jin Huang , Pengfei Chen , Guangba Yu , Yilun Wang , Haiyu Huang , Zilong He This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords serverlessfunction-as-a-servicerootcauseanalysisglobalcallgraphattentionnetworkauto-encoderfulllifecyclemultimodalobservability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

FaaSRCA claims that root cause analysis for serverless applications fails when it treats functions like long-lived microservices, because serverless instances are short-lived, generate pulse-like data, and live on a platform that can itself fail. The paper proposes a full-lifecycle method that fuses metrics, logs, and traces from both the application and the Kubernetes platform into a single Global Call Graph, then uses an unsupervised graph auto-encoder to rank nodes by how far they deviate from their normal state. If correct, the method locates the root cause at the granularity of a specific lifecycle stage (creation, execution, destruction) rather than just naming a service, and does so with roughly 91–95 percent top-k accuracy on two serverless benchmarks. The reason to care is that current RCA tools, designed for microservices, miss platform-side faults and cannot cope with transient serverless data.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Global Call Graph: a directed attributed graph $G=\{V,E,X\}$ whose nodes are both Kubernetes platform components and serverless function instances, whose edges are ownership/call relationships, and whose node attributes are fused BERT log embeddings, softmax-projected metric embeddings, and latency trace embeddings. The load-bearing mechanism is an unsupervised Graph Attention Network auto-encoder that reconstructs $X$; per-node reconstruction error $\|x_i-\hat{x}_i\|^2$ is compared, via z-scores, against the distribution of errors from fault-free graphs to rank candidates. This lets the method treat the graph as heterogeneous without explicit type labels, because each node is judged against its own normal pattern rather than against other node types.

What would settle it

Take a serverless deployment where the pod name is decoupled from the service name (or where Kubernetes components are linked by something other than ownership), run FaaSRCA unchanged, and measure whether HR@k falls toward the baselines; alternatively, inject a fault that alters no metric, log, or trace latency (e.g., silent data corruption) and check that FaaSRCA fails to rank the true root cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the full lifecycle of a serverless request can be represented as a single attributed graph, called the Global Call Graph, in which platform-side Kubernetes components (deployment, replicaset, pod) are connected by ownership relations to application-side function invocations, merged by the fact that the application service name is also the platform pod name. On this graph, FaaSRCA trains a Graph Attention Network auto-encoder to reconstruct node attributes; under normal operation the reconstruction error per node has a stable distribution, and during a fault the node whose reconstruction score deviates most from its normal z-score is the root cause. The paper reports that on Serverless TrainTicket and ML Workflow, this scheme achieves an average HR@k of 91.54% and NDCG@k of 94.62%, improving on the strongest baseline by 21.25 percentage points in HR@k. The unsupervised design means no labels are needed, only a window of fault-free graphs to define normal patterns.

Load-bearing premise

The Global Call Graph's topology is only correct if Kubernetes component relationships can be abstracted as a trace via ownership links and if the application service name always equals the platform pod name; if that naming or causal abstraction fails, the merged graph is wrong and every downstream score is invalid.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Serverless RCA can move from instance-level answers to stage-level answers: a fault is reported as occurring at, say, the creation stage of a named function, not just 'function X failed'.
  • Platform-side failures (image pull, kube-scheduler delay, pod or replicaset faults) become detectable, because the graph includes Kubernetes components rather than only application traces.
  • Multi-modal data is necessary: removing metrics, logs, or trace latency each cuts accuracy by roughly 25–39 percentage points, so a single-signal monitor will miss a large share of failures.
  • Unsupervised operation is viable in practice: only fault-free graphs are needed to build normal patterns, so no labeled fault data is required to deploy the method.
  • If deployed, operators could diagnose each request graph in about 8 ms, making online per-request root cause analysis feasible.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same merge-by-name trick could be tested on other Kubernetes-based FaaS platforms (OpenFaaS, Fission) as long as service name equals pod name; if a platform decouples those names, the Global Call Graph would need an explicit mapping.
  • Because the method is graph-structural rather than sequence-based, it might transfer to other short-lived, event-driven workloads (e.g., CI/CD jobs, data pipelines) that also produce pulse-like observability data.
  • The z-score ranking step suggests a testable invariant: the method's accuracy should degrade gracefully as the number of fault-free graphs used to estimate normal patterns shrinks; the paper does not report a sensitivity curve for this.
  • The paper's own limitation statement implies a hard boundary: faults that produce no change in any collected observability signal (e.g., silent data corruption or Byzantine behavior) are outside the method's reach.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes FaaSRCA, an unsupervised root cause analysis method for serverless applications. It constructs a "Global Call Graph" that merges platform-side Kubernetes component traces with application-side function call traces, fuses multi-modal observability data (metrics, logs, trace latency) into node attributes, and trains a GAT-based graph autoencoder on normal global call graphs. Reconstruction scores per node are then compared against per-node normal-score distributions via z-scores, and the top-ranked nodes are reported as root causes at function/stage granularity. The evaluation on two serverless benchmarks reports an average HR@k of 91.54% and NDCG@k of 94.62%, claiming improvements over several baselines.

Significance. If the reported results hold, FaaSRCA addresses a genuine gap: existing RCA methods focus on microservices and on the application execution phase, while serverless platforms require modeling of the full lifecycle including platform-side creation and destruction stages. The idea of representing Kubernetes component interactions as a trace and merging them with application traces into a single attributed graph is useful and connects observability across two traditionally separate layers. The method is unsupervised and trained only on normal graphs, which avoids label leakage and is a practical advantage. The paper includes an implementation link (currently anonymous), ablation studies over data modalities and GNN backbones, and an efficiency analysis. However, the evaluation has several load-bearing gaps in graph construction and metric definition that must be resolved before the performance claims can be fully trusted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV-C and §IV-E]
  2. [§V-A]
  3. [§V-B]
  4. [§V-A and §V-C]
minor comments (5)
  1. [§IV-B]
  2. [§IV-C and Fig. 7]
  3. [§V-D]
  4. [§V-A]
  5. [§I, reference [19]]

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: FaaSRCA's unsupervised reconstruction-score pipeline is self-contained and its reported gains are empirical, not forced by construction.

full rationale

I find no circularity in FaaSRCA's derivation chain. The method trains a GAT-based graph auto-encoder to reconstruct node attributes and computes per-node reconstruction errors; the root-cause ranking is obtained by z-scoring those errors against statistics of normal graphs of the same request type. This is an unsupervised anomaly-localization procedure: no root-cause label is used in training or in computing the normal pattern, so the reported HR@k and NDCG@k values are not forced by construction. The Global Call Graph construction is an engineering abstraction, not a renamed dependent variable. Self-citations to the authors' earlier work (e.g., MicroRank, TraceRank) appear only as baselines or related work and are not load-bearing for the proposed method. The paper's possible weaknesses—instance-unique pod names versus stable node identities in the z-score formula, and hyperparameters tuned on the same benchmarks—are correctness, reproducibility, or model-selection concerns, not circularity. Therefore the score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method does not introduce new physical entities. Its central claim depends on several domain assumptions about Kubernetes and observability data, plus a set of hyperparameters and an unreported embedding dimension p. The free parameters are not fitted to the target result, but they influence the reported accuracy.

free parameters (6)
  • GAT layer number = 4
    Selected in configuration experiments in Section V-E; performance varies with this choice.
  • GAT hidden dimension = 32
    Selected in configuration experiments in Section V-E.
  • Initial learning rate = 0.004
    Reported in Section V-A without sensitivity analysis.
  • Batch size = 128
    Reported in Section V-A without sensitivity analysis.
  • Training epochs = 100
    Reported in Section V-A without sensitivity analysis.
  • Metric embedding projection dimension p = not reported
    Introduced in Section IV-B2 but its value is never given.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Kubernetes components have implicit causal relationships that can be represented as a single trace based on ownership relationships.
    Invoked in Section IV-A Traces to build platform-side traces; if this abstraction fails, the global call graph is incomplete.
  • domain assumption The application-side service name is also the platform-side pod name, allowing traces from both sides to be merged.
    Stated in Section IV-C Graph Construction; this correspondence is not generally true in Knative, where pod names include revision and deployment suffixes.
  • domain assumption Reconstruction error of a node's attribute vector is a reliable indicator of anomalous behavior.
    Used in Section IV-D Model Training; the whole method rests on this premise.
  • domain assumption Normal node score distributions are stable enough to estimate mean and standard deviation from a finite set of normal graphs.
    Used in Section IV-E Root Cause Analysis for z-score computation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of FaaSRCA: Full Lifecycle Root Cause Analysis for Serverless Applications." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6S6CL3W3

@misc{pith2026241202239,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: FaaSRCA: Full Lifecycle Root Cause Analysis for Serverless Applications},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6S6CL3W3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02239}
}
read the original abstract

Serverless becomes popular as a novel computing paradigms for cloud native services. However, the complexity and dynamic nature of serverless applications present significant challenges to ensure system availability and performance. There are many root cause analysis (RCA) methods for microservice systems, but they are not suitable for precise modeling serverless applications. This is because: (1) Compared to microservice, serverless applications exhibit a highly dynamic nature. They have short lifecycle and only generate instantaneous pulse-like data, lacking long-term continuous information. (2) Existing methods solely focus on analyzing the running stage and overlook other stages, failing to encompass the entire lifecycle of serverless applications. To address these limitations, we propose FaaSRCA, a full lifecycle root cause analysis method for serverless applications. It integrates multi-modal observability data generated from platform and application side by using Global Call Graph. We train a Graph Attention Network (GAT) based graph auto-encoder to compute reconstruction scores for the nodes in global call graph. Based on the scores, we determine the root cause at the granularity of the lifecycle stage of serverless functions. We conduct experimental evaluations on two serverless benchmarks, the results show that FaaSRCA outperforms other baseline methods with a top-k precision improvement ranging from 21.25% to 81.63%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02239 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Functions execution time in Serverless TrainTicket. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CPU usage variation in serverless functions’ lifecycle. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The lifecycle stages of serverless functions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Evaluation results of Eadro on two serverless datasets. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overall architecture of FaaSRCA. A. Data Preparation Metrics. Metrics capture the internal behavior of serverless functions, their abnormal changes often indicate anomalies. Our focus is on system-level metrics, such as memory and CPU usage, which offer insights into t…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example of propagating trace context in function code. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visualization of Global Call Graph. service, and it is intuitive, without the need for additional expertise to further partition the analysis. E = {Ep, Ea} denotes the collection of edges. An edge ⃗em,n = (vm, vn) ∈ E indicates a directed connection from node vm to nod…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualization of locating root cause nodes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Results of different graph neural network basis. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    From laptop to lambda: Outsourcing everyday jobs to thousands of transient functional containers,

    S. Fouladi, F. Romero, D. Iter, Q. Li, S. Chatterjee, C. Kozyrakis, M. Zaharia, and K. Winstein, “From laptop to lambda: Outsourcing everyday jobs to thousands of transient functional containers,” in 2019 USENIX annual technical conference , 2019, pp. 475–488

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Aws lambda customer case studies,

    A. A. Lambda, “Aws lambda customer case studies,” 2020, https://aws. amazon.com/lambda/resources/customercase-studies/

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    A guide to developing serverless ecom- merce workflows for commercetools with aws lambda,

    S. Wilson and D. Pickering, “A guide to developing serverless ecom- merce workflows for commercetools with aws lambda,” 2021

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Cloud-scale runtime verification of serverless applications,

    K. Alpernas, A. Panda, L. Ryzhyk, and M. Sagiv, “Cloud-scale runtime verification of serverless applications,” in Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing , 2021, pp. 92–107

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Alastor: Reconstructing the provenance of serverless intrusions,

    P. Datta, I. Polinsky, M. A. Inam, A. Bates, and W. Enck, “Alastor: Reconstructing the provenance of serverless intrusions,” in 31st USENIX Security Symposium, 2022, pp. 2443–2460

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Mxfaas: Resource sharing in serverless environments for parallelism and efficiency,

    J. Stojkovic, T. Xu, H. Franke, and J. Torrellas, “Mxfaas: Resource sharing in serverless environments for parallelism and efficiency,” in Proceedings of the 50th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, 2023, pp. 1–15

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Faasdeliver: Cost-efficient and qos-aware function delivery in computing continuum,

    G. Yu, P. Chen, Z. Zheng, J. Zhang, X. Li, and Z. He, “Faasdeliver: Cost-efficient and qos-aware function delivery in computing continuum,” IEEE Transactions on Services Computing , 2023

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Enhancing performance modeling of serverless functions via static analysis,

    R. Wang, G. Casale, and A. Filieri, “Enhancing performance modeling of serverless functions via static analysis,” in Service-Oriented Computing - 20th International Conference , 2022, pp. 71–88

    work page 2022

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Diagnosing performance issues in microservices with heterogeneous data source,

    C. Hou, T. Jia, Y . Wu, Y . Li, and J. Han, “Diagnosing performance issues in microservices with heterogeneous data source,” in 2021 IEEE Intl Conf on Parallel & Distributed Processing with Applications, Big Data & Cloud Computing, Sustainable Computing & Communications, Socia...

    2021

  2. [10]

    Eadro: An end-to- end troubleshooting framework for microservices on multi-source data,

    C. Lee, T. Yang, Z. Chen, Y . Su, and M. R. Lyu, “Eadro: An end-to- end troubleshooting framework for microservices on multi-source data,” in 45th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering , 2023, pp. 1750–1762

    2023

  3. [11]

    Microrca: Root cause localization of performance issues in microservices,

    L. Wu, J. Tordsson, E. Elmroth, and O. Kao, “Microrca: Root cause localization of performance issues in microservices,” in 2020 IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium , 2020, pp. 1–9

    2020

  4. [12]

    Cloudrca: A root cause analysis framework for cloud computing platforms,

    Y . Zhang, Z. Guan, H. Qian, L. Xu, H. Liu, Q. Wen, L. Sun, J. Jiang, L. Fan, and M. Ke, “Cloudrca: A root cause analysis framework for cloud computing platforms,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM Interna- tional Conference on Information & Knowledge Management , 2021, pp. 4373–4382

    2021

  5. [13]

    Centralized core- granular scheduling for serverless functions,

    K. Kaffes, N. J. Yadwadkar, and C. Kozyrakis, “Centralized core- granular scheduling for serverless functions,” in Proceedings of the ACM symposium on cloud computing , 2019, pp. 158–164

    2019

  6. [14]

    Unsupervised detection of microservice trace anomalies through service-level deep bayesian networks,

    P. Liu, H. Xu, Q. Ouyang, R. Jiao, Z. Chen, S. Zhang, J. Yang, L. Mo, J. Zeng, W. Xue et al., “Unsupervised detection of microservice trace anomalies through service-level deep bayesian networks,” in 2020 IEEE 31st International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering, 2...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Microrank: End-to-end latency issue localization with extended spectrum analysis in microservice environments,

    G. Yu, P. Chen, H. Chen, Z. Guan, Z. Huang, L. Jing, T. Weng, X. Sun, and X. Li, “Microrank: End-to-end latency issue localization with extended spectrum analysis in microservice environments,” in Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021 , 2021, pp. 3087–3098

    2021

  8. [16]

    Tracerank: Abnormal service localization with dis-aggregated end-to-end tracing data in cloud native systems,

    G. Yu, Z. Huang, and P. Chen, “Tracerank: Abnormal service localization with dis-aggregated end-to-end tracing data in cloud native systems,” Journal of Software: Evolution and Process , p. e2413, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

    J. Devlin, M. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, “BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies,...

    2019

  10. [18]

    Graph attention networks,

    P. Veli ˇckovi´c, G. Cucurull, A. Casanova, A. Romero, P. Lio, and Y . Ben- gio, “Graph attention networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Faasrca implementation

    Anonymous, “Faasrca implementation.” https://anonymous.4open. science/r/submission-C4C8

  12. [20]

    Realworld,

    M. V . G ´erˆome Grignon, “Realworld,” 2019, https://github.com/ gothinkster/realworld

    2019

  13. [21]

    Serverless computing: One step forward, two steps back,

    J. M. Hellerstein, J. M. Faleiro, J. Gonzalez, J. Schleier-Smith, V . Sreekanti, A. Tumanov, and C. Wu, “Serverless computing: One step forward, two steps back,” in 9th Biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research, 2019

    2019

  14. [22]

    Serverless trainticket,

    CodeWisdom, “Serverless trainticket,” 2023, https://github.com/ FudanSELab/serverless-trainticket

    2023

  15. [23]

    Serverless in the wild: Characterizing and optimizing the serverless workload at a large cloud provider,

    M. Shahrad, R. Fonseca, I. Goiri, G. Chaudhry, P. Batum, J. Cooke, E. Laureano, C. Tresness, M. Russinovich, and R. Bianchini, “Serverless in the wild: Characterizing and optimizing the serverless workload at a large cloud provider,” in 2020 USENIX Annual Technical Conference ...

    2020

  16. [24]

    Enhancing performance modeling of serverless functions via static analysis,

    R. Wang, G. Casale, and A. Filieri, “Enhancing performance modeling of serverless functions via static analysis,” in International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing , 2022, pp. 71–88

    2022

  17. [25]

    What goes wrong in serverless runtimes? a survey of bugs in knative serving,

    T. Goodwin, A. Quinn, and L. Kuper, “What goes wrong in serverless runtimes? a survey of bugs in knative serving,” in Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on SErverless Systems, Applications and MEthodologies , 2023, pp. 12–18

    2023

  18. [26]

    Knative,

    Knative, “Knative,” 2023, https://knative.dev/docs/

    2023

  19. [27]

    Elasticsearch,

    Elastic, “Elasticsearch,” 2023, https://www.elastic.co/

    2023

  20. [28]

    Opentelemetry,

    Opentelemetry, “Opentelemetry,” 2023, https://opentelemetry.io./

    2023

  21. [29]

    Jaeger, “Jaeger,” 2023, https://www.jaegertracing.io/

    2023

  22. [30]

    Istio, “Istio,” 2023, https://istio.io/

    2023

  23. [31]

    Drain: An online log parsing approach with fixed depth tree,

    P. He, J. Zhu, Z. Zheng, and M. R. Lyu, “Drain: An online log parsing approach with fixed depth tree,” in 2017 IEEE international conference on web services , 2017, pp. 33–40

    2017

  24. [32]

    Transformers: State- of-the-art natural language processing,

    T. Wolf, L. Debut, V . Sanh, J. Chaumond, C. Delangue, A. Moi, P. Cistac, T. Rault, R. Louf, M. Funtowicz et al., “Transformers: State- of-the-art natural language processing,” in Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: system de...

    2020

  25. [33]

    Time-dependent representation for neural event sequence prediction,

    Y . Li, N. Du, and S. Bengio, “Time-dependent representation for neural event sequence prediction,” in 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    2018

  26. [34]

    Deep anomaly detection on attributed networks,

    K. Ding, J. Li, R. Bhanushali, and H. Liu, “Deep anomaly detection on attributed networks,” in Proceedings of the 2019 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining , 2019, pp. 594–602

    2019

  27. [35]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,

    T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,” in 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Latent error prediction and fault localization for microservice applications by learning from system trace logs,

    X. Zhou, X. Peng, T. Xie, J. Sun, C. Ji, D. Liu, Q. Xiang, and C. He, “Latent error prediction and fault localization for microservice applications by learning from system trace logs,” in Proceedings of the 2019 27th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conferenc...

    2019

  29. [37]

    Deep attentive anomaly detection for microservice systems with multimodal time-series data,

    Y . Chen, M. Yan, D. Yang, X. Zhang, and Z. Wang, “Deep attentive anomaly detection for microservice systems with multimodal time-series data,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Web Services , 2022, pp. 373–378

    2022

  30. [38]

    Microscaler: Automatic scaling for microservices with an online learning approach,

    G. Yu, P. Chen, and Z. Zheng, “Microscaler: Automatic scaling for microservices with an online learning approach,” in 2019 IEEE Inter- national Conference on Web Services , 2019, pp. 68–75

    2019

  31. [39]

    Deeptralog: Trace-log combined microservice anomaly de- tection through graph-based deep learning,

    C. Zhang, X. Peng, C. Sha, K. Zhang, Z. Fu, X. Wu, Q. Lin, and D. Zhang, “Deeptralog: Trace-log combined microservice anomaly de- tection through graph-based deep learning,” in Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering , 2022, pp. 623–634

    2022

  32. [40]

    Bench- marking microservice systems for software engineering research,

    X. Zhou, X. Peng, T. Xie, J. Sun, C. Xu, C. Ji, and W. Zhao, “Bench- marking microservice systems for software engineering research,” in Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Software Engi- neering: Companion Proceeedings , 2018, pp. 323–324

    2018

  33. [41]

    Container advisor,

    cadvisor, “Container advisor,” 2023, https://github.com/google/cadvisor/

    2023

  34. [42]

    Prometheus,

    Prometheus, “Prometheus,” 2023, https://prometheus.io/

    2023

  35. [43]

    Influxdb,

    InfluxData, “Influxdb,” 2023, https://www.influxdata.com/

    2023

  36. [44]

    Fluentd,

    S. Furuhashi., “Fluentd,” 2023, https://www.fluentd.org/architecture/

    2023

  37. [45]

    Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: A method for stochastic optimization,” in 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations , 2015

    2015

  38. [46]

    Chaosblade,

    Alibaba, “Chaosblade,” 2023, https://github.com/chaosblade-io/ chaosblade

    2023

  39. [47]

    Automatic failure diagnosis support in distributed large-scale software systems based on timing behavior anomaly correlation,

    N. Marwede, M. Rohr, A. van Hoorn, and W. Hasselbring, “Automatic failure diagnosis support in distributed large-scale software systems based on timing behavior anomaly correlation,” in 13th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering, 2009, pp. 47– 58

    2009

  40. [48]

    Root cause detection in a service- oriented architecture,

    M. Kim, R. Sumbaly, and S. Shah, “Root cause detection in a service- oriented architecture,” in ACM SIGMETRICS / International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Systems , 2013, pp. 93–104

    2013

  41. [49]

    Are we really making much progress? revisiting, benchmarking and refining heterogeneous graph neural networks,

    Q. Lv, M. Ding, Q. Liu, Y . Chen, W. Feng, S. He, C. Zhou, J. Jiang, Y . Dong, and J. Tang, “Are we really making much progress? revisiting, benchmarking and refining heterogeneous graph neural networks,” in Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery ...

    2021

  42. [50]

    Microscope: Pinpoint performance issues with causal graphs in micro-service environments,

    J. Lin, P. Chen, and Z. Zheng, “Microscope: Pinpoint performance issues with causal graphs in micro-service environments,” in Service-Oriented Computing: 16th International Conference , 2018, pp. 3–20

    2018

  43. [51]

    Groot: An event-graph-based approach for root cause analysis in industrial settings,

    H. Wang, Z. Wu, H. Jiang, Y . Huang, J. Wang, S. K ¨opr¨u, and T. Xie, “Groot: An event-graph-based approach for root cause analysis in industrial settings,” in 36th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering , 2021, pp. 419–429

    2021

  44. [52]

    Cloudranger: Root cause identification for cloud native systems,

    P. Wang, J. Xu, M. Ma, W. Lin, D. Pan, Y . Wang, and P. Chen, “Cloudranger: Root cause identification for cloud native systems,” in 2018 18th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing, 2018, pp. 492–502

    2018

  45. [53]

    Microdiag: Fine- grained performance diagnosis for microservice systems

    L. Wu, T. Johan, B. Jasmin, E. Erik, and K. Odej, “Microdiag: Fine- grained performance diagnosis for microservice systems.” in 2021 IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Cloud Intelligence, 2021, pp. 31– 36

    2021

  46. [54]

    Log clustering based problem identification for online service systems,

    Q. Lin, H. Zhang, J.-G. Lou, Y . Zhang, and X. Chen, “Log clustering based problem identification for online service systems,” in Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Compan- ion, 2016, pp. 102–111

    2016

  47. [55]

    Spectrum-based log diagnosis,

    C. M. Rosenberg and L. Moonen, “Spectrum-based log diagnosis,” in Proceedings of the 14th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement , 2020, pp. 1–12

    2020

  48. [56]

    Visualization of test informa- tion to assist fault localization,

    J. A. Jones, M. J. Harrold, and J. Stasko, “Visualization of test informa- tion to assist fault localization,” in Proceedings of the 24th international conference on Software engineering , 2002, pp. 467–477

    2002

  49. [57]

    Twin graph-based anomaly detection via attentive multi-modal learning for microservice system,

    J. Huang, Y . Yang, H. Yu, J. Li, and X. Zheng, “Twin graph-based anomaly detection via attentive multi-modal learning for microservice system,” in 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, 2023, pp. 66–78

    2023

  50. [58]

    Identifying bad software changes via multimodal anomaly detection for online service systems,

    N. Zhao, J. Chen, Z. Yu, H. Wang, J. Li, B. Qiu, H. Xu, W. Zhang, K. Sui, and D. Pei, “Identifying bad software changes via multimodal anomaly detection for online service systems,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Sy...

    2021

  51. [59]

    Faaster troubleshooting- evaluating distributed tracing approaches for serverless applications,

    M. C. Borges, S. Werner, and A. Kilic, “Faaster troubleshooting- evaluating distributed tracing approaches for serverless applications,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering , 2021, pp. 83–90

    2021

  52. [60]

    Dis- protrack: Distributed provenance tracking over serverless applications,

    U. Satapathy, R. Thakur, S. Chattopadhyay, and S. Chakraborty, “Dis- protrack: Distributed provenance tracking over serverless applications,” in International Conference on Computer Communications , 2023, pp. 1–10

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.