On the Model Update Strategies for Supervised Learning in AIOps Solutions
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
AIOps (Artificial Intelligence for IT Operations) solutions leverage the massive data produced during the operation of large-scale systems and machine learning models to assist software engineers in their system operations. As operation data produced in the field are constantly evolving due to factors such as the changing operational environment and user base, the models in AIOps solutions need to be constantly maintained after deployment. While prior works focus on innovative modeling techniques to improve the performance of AIOps models before releasing them into the field, when and how to update AIOps models remain an under-investigated topic. In this work, we performed a case study on three large-scale public operation data: two trace datasets from the cloud computing platforms of Google and Alibaba and one disk stats dataset from the BackBlaze cloud storage data center. We empirically assessed five different types of model update strategies for supervised learning regarding their performance, updating cost, and stability. We observed that active model update strategies (e.g., periodical retraining, concept drift guided retraining, time-based model ensembles, and online learning) achieve better and more stable performance than a stationary model. Particularly, applying sophisticated model update strategies (e.g., concept drift detection, time-based ensembles, and online learning) could provide better performance, efficiency, and stability than simply retraining AIOps models periodically. In addition, we observed that, although some update strategies (e.g., time-based ensemble and online learning) can save model training time, they significantly sacrifice model testing time, which could hinder their applications in AIOps solutions where the operation data arrive at high pace and volume and where immediate inferences are required. Our findings highlight that practitioners should consider the evolution of operation data and actively maintain AIOps models over time. Our observations can also guide researchers and practitioners in investigating more efficient and effective model update strategies that fit in the context of AIOps.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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