REVIEW 4 cited by
RCAgent: Cloud Root Cause Analysis by Autonomous Agents with Tool-Augmented Large Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
RCAgent: Cloud Root Cause Analysis by Autonomous Agents with Tool-Augmented Large Language Models
read the original abstract
Large language model (LLM) applications in cloud root cause analysis (RCA) have been actively explored recently. However, current methods are still reliant on manual workflow settings and do not unleash LLMs' decision-making and environment interaction capabilities. We present RCAgent, a tool-augmented LLM autonomous agent framework for practical and privacy-aware industrial RCA usage. Running on an internally deployed model rather than GPT families, RCAgent is capable of free-form data collection and comprehensive analysis with tools. Our framework combines a variety of enhancements, including a unique Self-Consistency for action trajectories, and a suite of methods for context management, stabilization, and importing domain knowledge. Our experiments show RCAgent's evident and consistent superiority over ReAct across all aspects of RCA -- predicting root causes, solutions, evidence, and responsibilities -- and tasks covered or uncovered by current rules, as validated by both automated metrics and human evaluations. Furthermore, RCAgent has already been integrated into the diagnosis and issue discovery workflow of the Real-time Compute Platform for Apache Flink of Alibaba Cloud.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
GSAR: Typed Grounding for Hallucination Detection and Recovery in Multi-Agent LLMs
GSAR is a grounding-evaluation framework for multi-agent LLMs that uses a four-way claim typology, evidence-weighted asymmetric scoring, and tiered recovery decisions to detect and mitigate hallucinations.
-
Can LLMs Really Recover Microservice Failures? A Recovery-Aware Evaluation of Diagnosis-to-Action Reasoning
Even when RAG-based LLMs identify the right root-cause service 91–99% of the time, their recovery-action validity stays only 37–60% on a 302-incident Kubernetes benchmark.
-
Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Claim Verification
ArgLLMs build argumentation frameworks from LLMs to support explainable and contestable formal reasoning for claim verification.
-
A Survey on the Memory Mechanism of Large Language Model based Agents
A systematic review of memory designs, evaluation methods, applications, limitations, and future directions for LLM-based agents.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.