Detection and Diagnosis of Recurrent Faults in Software Systems by Invariant Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A correctly functioning enterprise-software system exhibits long-term, stable correlations between many of its monitoring metrics. Some of these correlations no longer hold when there is an error in the system, potentially enabling error detection and fault diagnosis. However, existing approaches are inefficient, requiring a large number of metrics to be monitored and ignoring the relative discriminative properties of different metric correlations. In enterprise-software systems, similar faults tend to reoccur. It is therefore possible to significantly improve existing correlation-analysis approaches by learning the effects of common recurrent faults on correlations. We present methods to determine the most significant correlations to track for efficient error detection, and the correlations that contribute the most to diagnosis accuracy. We apply machine learning to identify the relevant correlations, removing the need for manually configured correlation thresholds, as used in the prior approaches. We validate our work on a multi-tier enterprise-software system. We are able to detect and correctly diagnose 8 of 10 injected faults to within three possible causes, and to within two in 7 out of 8 cases. This compares favourably with the existing approaches whose diagnosis accuracy is 3 out of 10 to within 3 possible causes. We achieve a precision of at least 95%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it