Leveraging large language models for the auto-remediation of microservice applications: an experimental study
Abstract
Runtime auto-remediation is crucial for ensuring the reliability and efficiency of distributed systems, especially within complex microservice-based applications. However, the complexity of modern microservice deployments often surpasses the capabilities of traditional manual remediation and existing autonomic computing methods. Our proposed solution harnesses large language models (LLMs) to generate and execute Ansible playbooks automatically to address issues within these complex environments. Ansible playbooks, a widely adopted markup language for IT task automation, facilitate critical actions such as addressing network failures, resource constraints, configuration errors, and application bugs prevalent in managing microservices. We apply in-context learning on pre-trained LLMs using our custom-made Ansible-based remediation dataset, equipping these models to comprehend diverse remediation tasks within microservice environments. Then, these tuned LLMs efficiently generate precise Ansible scripts tailored to specific issues encountered, surpassing current state-of-the-art techniques with high functional correctness (95.45%) and average correctness (98.86%).
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Reliability comes mainly from typed tool interfaces, provenance-aware retrieval, explicit budgets, independent gates, and rollback-aware execution, not from model fluency alone.
“Reliability comes mainly from typed tool interfaces, provenance-aware retrieval, explicit budgets, independent gates, and rollback-aware execution, not from model fluency alone [12], [37], [13], [75], [76].”
From Large language models for agentic NetOps and AIOps: Architectures, evaluation, and safety (2027) · cites this paper as [37]
General agent benchmarks help with multi-step interaction and tool use, but operations needs stricter safety and audit scoring.
“General agent benchmarks help with multi-step interaction and tool use, but operations needs stricter safety and audit scoring [40], [19], [37], [167].”
From Large language models for agentic NetOps and AIOps: Architectures, evaluation, and safety (2027) · cites this paper as [37]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 48 · Cited by 19
- Authors
- Sarda, K., Namrud, Z., Litoiu, M., Shwartz, L., & Watts, I.
- Affiliations
- York University (CA)
- IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center (US)
- IBM (Canada) (CA)
- Venue
- Companion Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on the Foundations of Software Engineering
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-07-10
- Pages
- 358-369
- OpenAlex
- W4400484851
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 8
- FWCI
- 8.32
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (ESEC/FSE) (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
- Keywords
- microservice applications, large language models, Ansible playbooks, IT automation, in-context learning, autonomic computing, distributed systems reliability, network failures, configuration errors
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