Cited by 21Software System Performance and ReliabilitySoftware Engineering ResearchCloud Computing and Resource Management

Chain-of-event: interpretable root cause analysis for microservices through automatically learning weighted event causal graph

Open access
Yao, Zhenhe, Pei, Changhua, Chen, Wenxiao, Wang, Hanzhang, Su, Liangfei, Jiang, Huai, Xie, Zhe, Nie, Xiaohui +1 more·2024·Companion Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering

Abstract

This paper presents Chain-of-Event (CoE), an interpretable model for root cause analysis in microservice systems that analyzes causal relationships of events transformed from multi-modal observation data. CoE distinguishes itself by its interpretable parameter design that aligns with the operation experience of Site Reliability Engineers (SREs), thereby facilitating the integration of their expertise directly into the analysis process. Furthermore, CoE automatically learns event-causal graphs from history incidents and accurately locates root cause events, eliminating the need for manual configuration. Through evaluation on two datasets sourced from an e-commerce system involving over 5,000 services, CoE achieves top-tier performance, with 79.30% top-1 and 98.8% top-3 accuracy on the Service dataset and 85.3% top-1 and 96.6% top-3 accuracy on the Business dataset. An ablation study further explores the significance of each component within the CoE model, offering insights into their individual contributions to the model’s overall effectiveness. Additionally, through real-world case analysis, this paper demonstrates how CoE enhances interpretability and improves incident comprehension for SREs. Our codes are available at https://github.com/NetManAIOps/Chain-of-Event.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3663529.3663827

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yao, Z., Pei, C., Chen, W., Wang, H., Su, L., Jiang, H., Xie, Z., Nie, X., & Pei, D.
Affiliations
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
  • eBay Inc., Shanghai, China
Venue
Companion Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering
Publisher
ACM
Published
2024-07-10
Pages
50-61
OpenAlex
W4400484740
Cited by
21
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 2
FWCI
9.17
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (62072264 and 62202445)
  • Beijing National Research Center For Information Science And Technology
  • National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFB2901800)
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
root cause analysis, microservices, interpretable models, incident diagnosis, site reliability engineering, e-commerce platforms, AIOps

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