CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 14Software System Performance and ReliabilityCloud Computing and Resource ManagementFault Detection and Control Systems

The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Constructing Large-Scale Real-World Benchmark Datasets for AIOps

Open access
Li, Zeyan, Zhao, Nengwen, Zhang, Shenglin, Sun, Yongqian, Chen, Pengfei, Wen, Xidao, Ma, Minghua, Pei, Dan·2022·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2208.03938arXiv 2208.03938
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Recently, AIOps (Artificial Intelligence for IT Operations) has been well studied in academia and industry to enable automated and effective software service management. Plenty of efforts have been dedicated to AIOps, including anomaly detection, root cause localization, incident management, etc. However, most existing works are evaluated on private datasets, so their generality and real performance cannot be guaranteed. The lack of public large-scale real-world datasets has prevented researchers and engineers from enhancing the development of AIOps. To tackle this dilemma, in this work, we introduce three public real-world, large-scale datasets about AIOps, mainly aiming at KPI anomaly detection, root cause localization on multi-dimensional data, and failure discovery and diagnosis. More importantly, we held three competitions in 2018/2019/2020 based on these datasets, attracting thousands of teams to participate. In the future, we will continue to publish more datasets and hold competitions to promote the development of AIOps further.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2208.03938

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Li et al. introduced datasets with metrics and traces on private systems but omitted logs and did not provide a benchmarking framework.

    “Li et al. [12] introduced datasets with metrics and traces on private systems but omitting logs and did not provide a benchmarking framework.”

    From RCAEval: A Benchmark for Root Cause Analysis of Microservice Systems with Telemetry Data (2025) · cites this paper as [12]

    Section 5.2 (p. 4) describes a dataset from a production system containing traces, KPIs, and metrics, with no logs among its three listed monitoring-data types. But the paper also calls the dataset a comprehensive benchmark (Section 5.2, p. 4) and describes competition scoring rules (p. 5) and an evaluation method (Section 3.2, p. 2). Those passages do not support the unqualified claim that it provided no benchmarking framework. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The AIOps 2020 dataset contains failures with metrics and traces but omits log information.

    “The AIOps 2020 dataset [12] contains failures with metrics and traces but omits valuable log information.”

    From RCAEval: A Benchmark for Root Cause Analysis of Microservice Systems with Telemetry Data (2025) · cites this paper as [12]

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. [4][4] 2022. AIOps Workshop. https://workshop.aiops.org. -
  2. [5][5] Faraz Ahmed, Jeffrey Erman, Zihui Ge, Alex X. Liu, Jia Wang, and He Yan. 2017. Detecting and Localizing End-to-End Performance Degradation for Cellular Data Services Based on TCP Loss Ratio and Round Trip Time. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 25, 6 (Dec. 2017), 3709-3722. -
  3. [6][6] Ranjita Bhagwan, Rahul Kumar, Ramachandran Ramjee, George Varghese, Surjyakanta Mohapatra, Hemanth Manoharan, and Piyush Shah. 2014. Adtributor: Revenue Debugging in Advertising Systems. In NSDI 2014 . -
  4. [9][9] Junjie Chen, Xiaoting He, Qingwei Lin, Yong Xu, Hongyu Zhang, Dan Hao, Feng Gao, Zhangwei Xu, Yingnong Dang, and Dongmei Zhang. 2019. An empirical investigation of incident triage for online service systems. In ICSE-SEIP 2019 . -
  5. [13][13] Zhuangbin Chen, Jinyang Liu, Yuxin Su, Hongyu Zhang, Xiao Ling, Yongqiang Yang, and Michael R. Lyu. 2022. Adaptive Performance Anomaly Detection for Online Service Systems via Pattern Sketching. In ICSE 2022 . arXiv:2201.02944 - · arXiv
  6. [14][14] Eli Cortez, Anand Bonde, Alexandre Muzio, Mark Russinovich, Marcus Fontoura, and Ricardo Bianchini. 2017. Resource central: Understanding and predicting workloads for improved resource management in large cloud platforms. In SOSP 2017 . -
  7. [15][15] Christina Delimitrou and Christos Kozyrakis. 2014. Quasar: Resource-efficient and qos-aware cluster management. ACMSIGPLAN Notices 49, 4 (2014), 127-144. -
  8. [16][16] Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. [n.d.]. Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In CVPR 2009 . -
  9. [17][17] Yu Gan, Mingyu Liang, Sundar Dev, David Lo, and Christina Delimitrou. 2021. Sage: Practical and Scalable ML-Driven Performance Debugging in Microservices. In ASPLOS 2021 . -
  10. [21][21] Nikolay Laptev, Saeed Amizadeh, and Ian Flint. 2015. Generic and scalable framework for automated time-series anomaly detection. In KDD 2015 . -
  11. [22][22] Alexander Lavin and Subutai Ahmad. 2015. Evaluating real-time anomaly detection algorithms-the Numenta anomaly benchmark. In 2015 IEEE 14th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA) . -
  12. [25][25] Fred Lin, Keyur Muzumdar, Nikolay Pavlovich Laptev, Mihai-Valentin Curelea, Seunghak Lee, and Sriram Sankar. 2020. Fast Dimensional Analysis for Root Cause Investigation in a Large-Scale Service Environment. Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems (June 2020). -
  13. [26][26] Jinjin Lin, Pengfei Chen, and Zibin Zheng. 2018. Microscope: Pinpoint Performance Issues with Causal Graphs in Micro-Service Environments. In ICSOC 2018 , Claus Pahl, Maja Vukovic, Jianwei Yin, and Qi Yu (Eds.). -
  14. [28][28] Qingwei Lin, Jian-Guang Lou, Hongyu Zhang, and Dongmei Zhang. 2016. iDice: Problem Identification for Emerging Issues. In ICSE 2016 . -
  15. [31][31] Jian-Guang Lou, Qingwei Lin, Rui Ding, Qiang Fu, Dongmei Zhang, and Tao Xie. 2017. Experience report on applying software analytics in incident management of online service. Automated Software Engineering 24, 4 (2017), 905-941. -
  16. [33][33] Minghua Ma, Zheng Yin, Shenglin Zhang, Sheng Wang, Christopher Zheng, Xinhao Jiang, Hanwen Hu, Cheng Luo, Yilin Li, Nengjun Qiu, et al. 2020. Diagnosing root causes of intermittent slow queries in cloud databases. Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment 13, 8 (2020). -
  17. [36][36] Paolo Notaro, Jorge Cardoso, and Michael Gerndt. 2021. A Survey of AIOps Methods for Failure Management. ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 12, 6 (2021), 1-45. -
  18. [37][37] M. A. Qureshi, L. Qiu, A. Mahimkar, J. He, and G. Baig. 2020. Multi-Dimensional Impact Detection and Diagnosis in Cellular Networks. In 2020 16th International Conference on Mobility, Sensing and Networking (MSN) . -
  19. [38][38] Hansheng Ren, Bixiong Xu, Yujing Wang, Chao Yi, Congrui Huang, Xiaoyu Kou, Tony Xing, Mao Yang, Jie Tong, and Qi Zhang. 2019. Time-series anomaly detection service at microsoft. In KDD 2019 . -
  20. [40][40] Yongqian Sun, Youjian Zhao, Ya Su, Dapeng Liu, Xiaohui Nie, Yuan Meng, Shiwen Cheng, Dan Pei, Shenglin Zhang, Xianping Qu, and Xuanyou Guo. 2018. HotSpot: Anomaly Localization for Additive KPIs With Multi-Dimensional Attributes. IEEE Access 6 (2018), 10909-10923. -
  21. [42][42] Li Wu, Johan Tordsson, Jasmin Bogatinovski, Erik Elmroth, and Odej Kao. 2021. MicroDiag: Fine-Grained Performance Diagnosis for Microservice Systems. In ICSE21 Workshop on Cloud Intelligence . 7. -
  22. [47][47] Xu Zhang, Chao Du, Yifan Li, Yong Xu, Hongyu Zhang, Si Qin, Ze Li, Qingwei Lin, Yingnong Dang, Andrew Zhou, Saravanakumar Rajmohan, and Dongmei Zhang. 2021. HALO: Hierarchy-Aware Fault Localization for Cloud Systems. In KDD 2021 . -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Li, Z., Zhao, N., Zhang, S., Sun, Y., Chen, P., Wen, X., Ma, M., & Pei, D.
Affiliations
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • Nankai University (CN)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2022
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2208.03938
arXiv
2208.03938
OpenAlex
W4301695362
Cited by
11
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/legalcode
Locations
  • 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 › Cloud Computing and Resource Management
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Fault Detection and Control Systems
Keywords
AIOps, benchmark dataset, root cause localization, IT operations, public datasets, data competition

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