Cited by 45Software System Performance and ReliabilitySoftware Engineering ResearchCloud Computing and Resource Management

Xpert: empowering incident management with query recommendations via large language models

Open access
Jiang, Yuxuan, Zhang, Chaoyun, He, Shilin, Yang, Zhihao, Ma, Minghua, Qin, Si, Kang, Yu, Dang, Yingnong +3 more·2024·Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering

Abstract

Large-scale cloud systems play a pivotal role in modern IT infrastructure. However, incidents occurring within these systems can lead to service disruptions and adversely affect user experience. To swiftly resolve such incidents, on-call engineers depend on crafting domain-specific language (DSL) queries to analyze telemetry data. However, writing these queries can be challenging and time-consuming. This paper presents a thorough empirical study on the utilization of queries of KQL, a DSL employed for incident management in a large-scale cloud management system at Microsoft. The findings obtained underscore the importance and viability of KQL queries recommendation to enhance incident management.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3597503.3639081

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • If the system cannot reliably propose the next useful query, it will default to narrative.

    “If the system cannot reliably propose the next useful query, it will default to narrative [8], [7], [79].”

    From Large language models for agentic NetOps and AIOps: Architectures, evaluation, and safety (2027) · cites this paper as [8]

    Section 2.3 (page unavailable) describes Xpert’s response when incident context lacks enough information for a full query: it recommends a query template with placeholders for engineers to complete. That is a query-based approach, not the claimed default to narrative. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • By combining language inference with operational tools, language models can support event workflows, including monitoring and diagnostics.

    “Recent research demonstrates that by combining language inference with operational tools, language models can support event workflows, including monitoring and diagnostics.[7], [8], [9], [10].”

    From Large language models for agentic NetOps and AIOps: Architectures, evaluation, and safety (2027) · cites this paper as [8]

    Section 4.1, “Xpert in a Nutshell” (page not available), describes an LLM using incident context and historical KQL queries to recommend queries to on-call engineers, supporting diagnostic work in incident management. The paper does not show the model performing monitoring; a monitoring system supplies some of the incident information instead. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In incident management, LLM agents help develop systems capable of recommending investigative queries, summarising monitoring signals, and identifying potential root causes.

    “In incident management, this helps in developing systems capable of recommending investigative queries, summarising monitoring signals, and identifying potential root causes [7], [8], [10].”

    From Large language models for agentic NetOps and AIOps: Architectures, evaluation, and safety (2027) · cites this paper as [8]

    Section 9.2 describes Xpert’s LLM-based investigative-query recommendations and reports other LLM systems that summarize outages or recommend incident root causes. It does not say that LLM systems summarize monitoring signals specifically; Section 4.2.1 instead describes an incident summary as information supplied to Xpert. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • There is a latent system state, operators and automation observe it only through tool-mediated observations, and they apply actions that alter future state.

    “There is a latent system state x t (network and service state), operators and automation observe it only through tool-mediated observations o t (logs, metrics, traces, reachability checks), and they apply actions a t (changes, mitigations) that alter future state [1], [10], [8], [18].”

    From Large language models for agentic NetOps and AIOps: Architectures, evaluation, and safety (2027) · cites this paper as [8]

    The Introduction and §2.1 describe engineers using queries to examine logs, time series, and traces before taking mitigation actions (page numbers unavailable). They do not describe a latent system state, say that observations are only tool-mediated, or model actions as altering future state. The paper supports the incident-investigation and mitigation elements, but not the full state–observation–action account. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The useful foundation for LLMs in operations is the interface between the model and the operational system: what the model may observe, which tools it may call, what evidence it must collect, which checks it must pass, and how unsafe or uncertain actions are stopped.

    “For this reason, the useful foundation is not a general account of prompting or language modelling.It is the interface between the model and the operational system: what the model may observe, which tools it may call, what evidence it must collect, which checks it must pass, and how unsafe or uncertain actions are stopped [9], [7], [8], [67], [31], [74].”

    From Large language models for agentic NetOps and AIOps: Architectures, evaluation, and safety (2027) · cites this paper as [8]

    Section 4.2.1 describes the incident information supplied to Xpert, and §4.4 describes checks that validate and attempt to repair generated queries. The paper does not establish rules for which tools the model may call, require it to collect particular evidence, or describe stopping unsafe or uncertain operational actions; its checks concern query validity. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. Tharam Dillon, Chen Wu, and Elizabeth Chang. Cloud computing: issues and challenges. In 2010 24th IEEE international conference on advanced information networking and applications, pages 27-33. Ieee, 2010.
  2. Xiaohan Yan, Ken Hsieh, Yasitha Liyanage, Minghua Ma, Murali Chintalapati, Qingwei Lin, Yingnong Dang, and Dongmei Zhang. Aegis: Attribution of con- trol plane change impact across layers and components for cloud systems. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP), pages 222-233. IEEE, 2023.
  3. Bernd Grobauer and Thomas Schreck. Towards incident handling in the cloud: challenges and approaches. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM workshop on Cloud computing security workshop, pages 77-86, 2010.
  4. Zhuangbin Chen, Yu Kang, Liqun Li, Xu Zhang, Hongyu Zhang, Hui Xu, Yangfan Zhou, Li Yang, Jeffrey Sun, Zhangwei Xu, et al. Towards intelligent incident management: why we need it and how we make it. In Proceedings of the 28th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 1487-1497, 2020.
  5. Liqun Li, Xu Zhang, Shilin He, Yu Kang, Hongyu Zhang, Minghua Ma, Yingnong Dang, Zhangwei Xu, Saravan Rajmohan, Qingwei Lin, et al. Conan: Diagnosing batch failures for cloud systems. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP), pages 138- 149. IEEE, 2023.
  6. Xu Zhang, Yong Xu, Si Qin, Shilin He, Bo Qiao, Ze Li, Hongyu Zhang, Xukun Li, Yingnong Dang, Qingwei Lin, et al. Onion: identifying incident-indicating logs for cloud systems. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 1253-1263, 2021.
  7. Chaoyun Zhang, Marco Fiore, Cezary Ziemlicki, and Paul Patras. Microscope: mobile service traffic decomposition for network slicing as a service. In Pro- ceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking, pages 1-14, 2020.
  8. Chenyu Zhao, Minghua Ma, Zhenyu Zhong, Shenglin Zhang, Zhiyuan Tan, Xiao Xiong, LuLu Yu, Jiayi Feng, Yongqian Sun, Yuzhi Zhang, et al. Robust multimodal failure detection for microservice systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18985, 2023. · arXiv
  9. Chaoyun Zhang, Paul Patras, and Hamed Haddadi. Deep learning in mobile and wireless networking: A survey. IEEE Communications surveys & tutorials, 21(3):2224-2287, 2019.
  10. Chaoyun Zhang, Marco Fiore, Iain Murray, and Paul Patras. Cloudlstm: A recurrent neural model for spatiotemporal point-cloud stream forecasting. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 10851-10858, 2021.
  11. Zhengran Zeng, Yuqun Zhang, Yong Xu, Minghua Ma, Bo Qiao, Wentao Zou, Qingjun Chen, Meng Zhang, Xu Zhang, Hongyu Zhang, et al. Traceark: To- wards actionable performance anomaly alerting for online service systems. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP), pages 258-269. IEEE, 2023.
  12. Lu Wang, Chaoyun Zhang, Ruomeng Ding, Yong Xu, Qihang Chen, Wentao Zou, Qingjun Chen, Meng Zhang, Xuedong Gao, Hao Fan, et al. Root cause analysis for microservice systems via hierarchical reinforcement learning from human feedback. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 5116-5125, 2023.
  13. Yuhang Chen, Chaoyun Zhang, Minghua Ma, Yudong Liu, Ruomeng Ding, Bowen Li, Shilin He, Saravan Rajmohan, Qingwei Lin, and Dongmei Zhang. Imdiffusion: Imputed diffusion models for multivariate time series anomaly detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.00754, 2023. · arXiv
  14. Manish Shetty, Chetan Bansal, Sai Pramod Upadhyayula, Arjun Radhakrishna, and Anurag Gupta. Autotsg: learning and synthesis for incident troubleshooting. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, pages 1477-1488, 2022.
  15. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. Bleu: A method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL '02, page 311-318, USA, 2002. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  16. Van-Hoang Le and Hongyu Zhang. An evaluation of log parsing with chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01590, 2023. · arXiv
  17. Le Xiao and Xiaolin Chen. Enhancing llm with evolutionary fine tuning for news summary generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.02839, 2023. · arXiv
  18. Ruomeng Ding, Chaoyun Zhang, Lu Wang, Yong Xu, Minghua Ma, Wei Zhang, Si Qin, Saravan Rajmohan, Qingwei Lin, and Dongmei Zhang. Everything of thoughts: Defying the law of penrose triangle for thought generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.04254, 2023. · arXiv
  19. Dheeraj Mekala, Jason Wolfe, and Subhro Roy. Zerotop: Zero-shot task-oriented semantic parsing using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10815, 2022. · arXiv
  20. Bulbul Gupta, Pooja Mittal, and Tabish Mufti. A review on amazon web service (aws), microsoft azure & google cloud platform (gcp) services. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on ICT for Digital, Smart, and Sustainable Development, ICIDSSD 2020, 27-28 February 2020, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi, India, 2021.
  21. Supriyo Ghosh, Manish Shetty, Chetan Bansal, and Suman Nath. How to fight production incidents? an empirical study on a large-scale cloud service. In Proceedings of the 13th Symposium on Cloud Computing, pages 126-141, 2022.
  22. Weijing Wang, Junjie Chen, Lin Yang, Hongyu Zhang, Pu Zhao, Bo Qiao, Yu Kang, Qingwei Lin, Saravanakumar Rajmohan, Feng Gao, et al. How long will it take to mitigate this incident for online service systems? In 2021 IEEE 32nd International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE), pages 36-46. IEEE, 2021.
  23. Manish Shetty, Chetan Bansal, Sumit Kumar, Nikitha Rao, Nachiappan Nagappan, and Thomas Zimmermann. Neural knowledge extraction from cloud service in- cidents. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP), pages 218-227. IEEE, 2021.
  24. Chen Luo, Jian-Guang Lou, Qingwei Lin, Qiang Fu, Rui Ding, Dongmei Zhang, and Zhe Wang. Correlating events with time series for incident diagnosis. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 1583-1592, 2014.
  25. Hansheng Ren, Bixiong Xu, Yujing Wang, Chao Yi, Congrui Huang, Xiaoyu Kou, Tony Xing, Mao Yang, Jie Tong, and Qi Zhang. Time-series anomaly detection service at microsoft. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, pages 3009-3017, 2019.
  26. Liqun Li, Xu Zhang, Xin Zhao, Hongyu Zhang, Yu Kang, Pu Zhao, Bo Qiao, Shilin He, Pochian Lee, Jeffrey Sun, et al. Fighting the fog of war: Automated incident detection for cloud systems. In 2021 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 21), pages 131-146, 2021.
  27. Toufique Ahmed, Supriyo Ghosh, Chetan Bansal, Thomas Zimmermann, Xuchao Zhang, and Saravan Rajmohan. Recommending root-cause and mitigation steps for cloud incidents using large language models. In ICSE 2023, 2023.
  28. Marjan Mernik, Jan Heering, and Anthony M Sloane. When and how to develop domain-specific languages. ACM computing surveys (CSUR), 37(4):316-344, 2005.
  29. Chris J Date. A Guide to the SQL Standard. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1989.
  30. Olaf Hartig and Jorge Pérez. Semantics and complexity of graphql. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference, pages 1155-1164, 2018.
  31. Navin Sabharwal, Piyush Pandey, Navin Sabharwal, and Piyush Pandey. Work- ing with prometheus query language (promql). Monitoring Microservices and Containerized Applications: Deployment, Configuration, and Best Practices for Prometheus and Alert Manager, pages 141-167, 2020.
  32. Phuong Pham, Vivek Jain, Lukas Dauterman, Justin Ormont, and Navendu Jain. Deeptriage: Automated transfer assistance for incidents in cloud services. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 3281-3289, 2020.
  33. Zilong He, Pengfei Chen, Yu Luo, Qiuyu Yan, Hongyang Chen, Guangba Yu, and Fangyuan Li. Graph based incident extraction and diagnosis in large-scale online systems. In Proceedings of the 37th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pages 1-13, 2022.
  34. Yinfang Chen, Huaibing Xie, Minghua Ma, Yu Kang, Xin Gao, Liu Shi, Yunjie Cao, Xuedong Gao, Hao Fan, Ming Wen, Jun Zeng, Supriyo Ghosh, Xuchao Zhang, Chaoyun Zhang, et al. Empowering practical root cause analysis by large language models for cloud incidents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15778, 2023. · arXiv
  35. Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971, 2023. · arXiv
  36. Samyam Rajbhandari, Olatunji Ruwase, Jeff Rasley, Shaden Smith, and Yuxiong He. Zero-infinity: Breaking the gpu memory wall for extreme scale deep learning. In Proceedings of the International Conference for High Performance Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, pages 1-14, 2021.
  37. Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural infor- mation processing systems, 33:1877-1901, 2020.
  38. Niklas Muennighoff. Sgpt: GPT sentence embeddings for semantic search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.08904, 2022. · arXiv
  39. Baoli Li and Liping Han. Distance weighted cosine similarity measure for text classification. In Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning-IDEAL 2013: 14th International Conference, IDEAL 2013, Hefei, China, October 20-23, 2013. Proceedings 14, pages 611-618. Springer, 2013.
  40. Gautier Izacard, Patrick Lewis, Maria Lomeli, Lucas Hosseini, Fabio Petroni, Timo Schick, Jane Dwivedi-Yu, Armand Joulin, Sebastian Riedel, and Edouard Grave. Few-shot learning with retrieval augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.03299, 2022. · arXiv
  41. Iulian Neamtiu, Jeffrey S Foster, and Michael Hicks. Understanding source code evolution using abstract syntax tree matching. In Proceedings of the 2005 international workshop on Mining software repositories, pages 1-5, 2005.
  42. Matt Post. A call for clarity in reporting bleu scores. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Machine Translation: Research Papers, page 186. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018.
  43. Satanjeev Banerjee and Alon Lavie. METEOR: An automatic metric for MT evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization, pages 65-72, Ann Arbor, Michigan, June 2005. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  44. Panagiotis Louridas. Static code analysis. Ieee Software, 23(4):58-61, 2006.
  45. Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485-5551, 2020.
  46. Yue Wang, Hung Le, Akhilesh Deepak Gotmare, Nghi DQ Bui, Junnan Li, and Steven CH Hoi. Codet5+: Open code large language models for code understand- ing and generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.07922, 2023. · arXiv
  47. David Gros, Hariharan Sezhiyan, Prem Devanbu, and Zhou Yu. Code to comment" translation" data, metrics, baselining & evaluation. In Proceedings of the 35th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering, pages 746-757, 2020.
  48. Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. Advances in neural information processing systems, 32, 2019.
  49. Bowen Qin, Binyuan Hui, Lihan Wang, Min Yang, Jinyang Li, Binhua Li, Ruiying Geng, Rongyu Cao, Jian Sun, Luo Si, et al. A survey on text-to-sql parsing: Concepts, methods, and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.13629, 2022. · arXiv
  50. George Katsogiannis-Meimarakis and Georgia Koutrika. A survey on deep learning approaches for text-to-sql. The VLDB Journal, pages 1-32, 2023.
  51. Zelun Wang and Jyh-Charn Liu. Translating math formula images to latex sequences using deep neural networks with sequence-level training. International Journal on Document Analysis and Recognition (IJDAR), 24(1-2):63-75, 2021.
  52. Pin Ni, Ramin Okhrati, Steven Guan, and Victor Chang. Knowledge graph and deep learning-based text-to-graphql model for intelligent medical consultation chatbot. Information Systems Frontiers, pages 1-20, 2022.
  53. Torsten Scholak, Nathan Schucher, and Dzmitry Bahdanau. PICARD: Parsing incrementally for constrained auto-regressive decoding from language models. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 9895-9901, 2021.
  54. Binyuan Hui, Ruiying Geng, Lihan Wang, Bowen Qin, Yanyang Li, Bowen Li, Jian Sun, and Yongbin Li. S2sql: Injecting syntax to question-schema interaction graph encoder for text-to-sql parsers. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 1254-1262, 2022.
  55. Aiwei Liu, Xuming Hu, Lijie Wen, and Philip S Yu. A comprehensive evaluation of chatgpt's zero-shot text-to-sql capability. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13547, 2023. · arXiv
  56. Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:24824-24837, 2022.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jiang, Y., Zhang, C., He, S., Yang, Z., Ma, M., Qin, S., Kang, Y., Dang, Y., Rajmohan, S., Lin, Q., & Zhang, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Microsoft Research Asia (China) (CN)
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-04-12
Pages
1-13
ISSN
0270-5257 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4394745158
Cited by
45
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 7
FWCI
19.59
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cloud Computing and Resource Management
Keywords
incident management, query suggestion, large language models, telemetry data analysis, cloud management systems, query generation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review