PyRCA: A Library for Metric-based Root Cause Analysis
Open accessAbstract
We introduce PyRCA, an open-source Python machine learning library of Root Cause Analysis (RCA) for Artificial Intelligence for IT Operations (AIOps). It provides a holistic framework to uncover the complicated metric causal dependencies and automatically locate root causes of incidents. It offers a unified interface for multiple commonly used RCA models, encompassing both graph construction and scoring tasks. This library aims to provide IT operations staff, data scientists, and researchers a one-step solution to rapid model development, model evaluation and deployment to online applications. In particular, our library includes various causal discovery methods to support causal graph construction, and multiple types of root cause scoring methods inspired by Bayesian analysis, graph analysis and causal analysis, etc. Our GUI dashboard offers practitioners an intuitive point-and-click interface, empowering them to easily inject expert knowledge through human interaction. With the ability to visualize causal graphs and the root cause of incidents, practitioners can quickly gain insights and improve their workflow efficiency. This technical report introduces PyRCA's architecture and major functionalities, while also presenting benchmark performance numbers in comparison to various baseline models. Additionally, we demonstrate PyRCA's capabilities through several example use cases.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Metric-based RCA baselines include RUN, CausalRCA, CIRCA, RCD, MicroCause, EasyRCA, MSCRED, BARO, and ε-Diagnosis.
“Metric-based RCA baselines include causal inference-based methods such as RUN, CausalRCA, CIRCA, RCD, MicroCause, EasyRCA, MSCRED, as well as noncausal methods such as BARO, and 𝜖-Diagnosis [6,8,10,14].”
From RCAEval: A Benchmark for Root Cause Analysis of Microservice Systems with Telemetry Data (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
Section 3.2.2 identifies RCD as an RCA model, Section 3.2.1 describes ε-Diagnosis, and Section 1.1 identifies CIRCA as an RCA library containing baselines. The copy does not substantiate the full list: searches for RUN, CausalRCA, MicroCause, EasyRCA, MSCRED, and BARO did not find those named methods. It also does not support the sentence’s causal/noncausal classification for the listed methods. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPyRCA offers only a limited set of metric-based RCA methods and relies on synthetic datasets.
“PyRCA [14] offers only a limited set of metric-based RCA methods and relies on synthetic datasets.”
From RCAEval: A Benchmark for Root Cause Analysis of Microservice Systems with Telemetry Data (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
Section 4.1 (page not available) says the experiments use a simulated dataset, supporting the claim about synthetic data for the paper’s evaluation. But the Introduction describes a varied, extensible collection of RCA models, and Section 2 says PyRCA loads metric data; the copy does not support saying the library offers only a limited set of methods or relies on synthetic datasets to operate. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPrevious works such as PyRCA and Pham et al. offer only a limited set of metric-based RCA methods, while our framework provides a more comprehensive set of baselines by also including trace-based and multi-source RCA methods.
“Previous works such as PyRCA [14] and Pham et al. [15] offer only a limited set of metric-based RCA methods, while our framework provides a more comprehensive set of baselines by also including trace-based and multi-source RCA methods.”
From RCAEval: A Benchmark for Root Cause Analysis of Microservice Systems with Telemetry Data (2025) · cites this paper as [14]
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
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- David Maxwell Chickering. Optimal structure identification with greedy search. Journal of machine learning research, 3(Nov):507-554, 2002.
- Judea Pearl et al. Models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity- Press, 19(2), 2000.
- Guangba Yu, Pengfei Chen, Hongyang Chen, Zijie Guan, Zicheng Huang, Linxiao Jing, Tianjun Weng, Xinmeng Sun, and Xiaoyun Li. Microrank: End-to-end latency issue localization with extended spectrum analysis in microservice environments. In Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021, pages 3087-3098, 2021.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
RCAEval: A Benchmark for Root Cause Analysis of Microservice Systems with Telemetry Data
Pham, L., Zhang, H., Ha, H., Salim, F., & Zhang, X. (2025) · Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 · doi:10.1145/3701716.3715290 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
TORAI: Multi-source Root Cause Analysis for Blind Spots in Microservice Service Call Graph
Pham, L., Ha, H., Zhang, X., & Zhang, H. (2026) · Proceedings of the ACM on software engineering. · doi:10.1145/3808137 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
Tsubouchi, Y., & Tsuruta, H. (2024) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3374334 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Hanada, H., & Ishibashi, K. (2024) · IEEE Annual International Computer Software and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) · doi:10.1109/compsac61105.2024.00391 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Anytime Communication: A Human-AI Collaboration Framework for Causal-Based Root Cause Analysis
Deng, Z., Prugsanapan, P., & Kong, Z. (2025) · AIAA SciTech Forum · doi:10.2514/6.2025-2252
- Authors
- Liu, C., Yang, W., Mittal, H., Singh, M., Sahoo, D., & Hoi, S. C. H.
- Affiliations
- Salesforce (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2306.11417
- OpenAlex
- W4381586563
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Strong
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Fault Detection and Control Systems
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Keywords
- root cause analysis, AIOps, IT operations, causal discovery, Bayesian analysis, graph analysis, incident diagnosis, open-source Python package
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
