Towards a Consistent Interpretation of AIOps Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence for IT Operations (AIOps) has been adopted in organizations in various tasks, including interpreting models to identify indicators of service failures. To avoid misleading practitioners, AIOps model interpretations should be consistent (i.e., different AIOps models on the same task agree with one another on feature importance). However, many AIOps studies violate established practices in the machine learning community when deriving interpretations, such as interpreting models with suboptimal performance, though the impact of such violations on the interpretation consistency has not been studied. In this article, we investigate the consistency of AIOps model interpretation along three dimensions: internal consistency, external consistency, and time consistency. We conduct a case study on two AIOps tasks: predicting Google cluster job failures and Backblaze hard drive failures. We find that the randomness from learners, hyperparameter tuning, and data sampling should be controlled to generate consistent interpretations. AIOps models with AUCs greater than 0.75 yield more consistent interpretation compared to low-performing models. Finally, AIOps models that are constructed with the Sliding Window or Full History approaches have the most consistent interpretation with the trends presented in the entire datasets. Our study provides valuable guidelines for practitioners to derive consistent AIOps model interpretation.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.041 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".