Autonomic Microservice Management via Agentic AI and MAPE-K Integration

Alexander Bakhtin; Davide Taibi; Matteo Esposito; Mikel Robredo; Noman Ahmad; Ruoyu Su; Valentina Lenarduzzi

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 42 references

Autonomic Microservice Management via Agentic AI and MAPE-K Integration

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes the first framework that integrates MAPE-K autonomic computing with agentic AI, letting an intelligent agent detect, analyze, plan, and execute anomaly remediation in microservices while human approval gates only…

desk verdict A coherent vision paper for MAPE-K plus agentic AI, but the central autonomic threshold is under-specified and the abstract overclaims industry readiness. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22185 v1 pith:MONYTZSI submitted 2025-06-27 cs.SE cs.AIcs.DCcs.NIcs.SYeess.SY

Matteo Esposito , Alexander Bakhtin , Noman Ahmad , Mikel Robredo , Ruoyu Su , Valentina Lenarduzzi , Davide Taibi This is my paper

classification cs.SEcs.AIcs.DCcs.NIcs.SYeess.SY

keywords AgenticAIMAPE-Kmicroservicesanomalydetectionautonomiccomputinghuman-in-the-loopAnsiblethreshold

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that today's microservice anomaly management is too manual and that prior AI-assisted MAPE-K loops lack true agentic behavior. It proposes a framework in which an agentic AI (an LLM-driven agent) runs the Monitor, Analyze, Plan, and Execute phases of the MAPE-K cycle over a managed microservices system, with a knowledge base feeding each phase. The new mechanism is an 'autonomic threshold' alpha that counts high-risk actions in a remediation plan and forces human approval once the threshold is reached. This is a conceptual design paper: the authors state that empirical validation is still future work and that no historical data exists yet for such systems.

What carries the argument

The central object is the MAPE-K cycle (Monitor, Analyze, Plan, Execute, Knowledge) as the control loop that organizes the agentic AI's behavior. Its load-bearing innovation is the 'autonomic threshold' alpha, defined by a weighted count of high-risk actions in a plan, which gates when the AI may act autonomously and when it must hand over to a human. Ansible playbooks serve as the proposed machine-readable format for plans, and the knowledge base stores telemetry, detected anomalies, plans, and execution outcomes so the agent improves across cycles.

What would settle it

Run the proposed framework on a distributed microservices benchmark with injected faults and measure how often the agent produces a correct analysis and a working remediation playbook without human help, and whether every action above the autonomic threshold is truly high-risk by expert assessment; if the agent's success rate is low or the threshold sends harmless actions to humans, the claimed autonomous management fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that MAPE-K and agentic AI can be unified into a single autonomous loop for microservices, and that this is the first such integration. In the proposed design, the agent continuously monitors telemetry from three layers (static source code, dynamic runtime, and organizational structure), analyzes it to detect anomalies, formulates remediation plans as machine-readable automation such as Ansible playbooks, and executes low- and medium-risk actions directly. High-risk actions count against an autonomic threshold alpha; when alpha is reached, execution pauses and a human operator takes over. The paper presents this as a path to 'industry-ready' autonomous operations that shift practitioners from reactive firefighting to proactive strategizing.

Load-bearing premise

The framework works only if LLM-based agents are reliable enough to analyze telemetry, select analysis methods, write correct automation, and judge which actions are high-risk in real production systems, and if the autonomic threshold accurately marks when human intervention is needed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the framework works as proposed, a practitioner could delegate routine anomaly detection and remediation to the agent and only intervene on high-risk actions.
The three-layer design means the same loop could monitor performance, resilience, security, and organizational coupling, not just crashes.
The autonomic threshold gives organizations a dial to trade autonomy against safety without redesigning the system.
Successful empirical validation would provide the first historical data on agentic-AI-based autonomic anomaly management that the authors note is currently missing.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial inference: the threshold alpha is described as a fixed weighted count; a natural extension is to make alpha adaptive, learning from past incidents which actions actually caused instability.
Another extension, not discussed in the paper, is using the same MAPE-K plus agentic-AI pattern for broader infrastructure that mixes microservices with serverless or edge components.
The framework's treatment of organizational-layer anomalies suggests it could one day recommend team-structure changes, which would raise the stakes for the privacy and bias concerns the authors flag.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Plain English take: this is an honest, well-structured vision paper. The genuinely new element is a MAPE-K design for microservice anomaly management where remediation actions are risk-classified (LR/MR/HR) and an 'autonomic threshold' alpha gates whether the AI acts alone or must bring a human in. The paper positions itself fairly against prior LLM-based MAPE-K work, cleanly separating Analyze and Plan and adding explicit human oversight for high-risk actions. The limitations section is candid, admitting there is no historical data and that empirical validation is future work.

The soft spots are real, and one is load-bearing. The abstract claims 'practical, industry-ready solutions,' which nothing in the paper supports; that is a serious overclaim. More fundamentally, alpha is never operationally defined. Section 4.3 only says it is reached based on 'how many HR actions are associated with each action,' without a formula, unit, or calibration procedure, and Section 4.4 admits no current definition exists. The LR/MR/HR levels are introduced with examples, not a classification method. So an implementer cannot actually build the framework from the paper as written; the mechanism that balances autonomy and control is not computable from the spec. This is a specification gap, not merely a missing experiment.

That said, the paper is explicitly a vision paper, and on that genre the gap is partly acknowledged. The authors could fix the worst of it by giving a concrete instantiation of alpha (even a weighted sum with one worked example) or by marking alpha as an open research question and deleting 'industry-ready' from the abstract. The citation pattern looks fine; the self-citations are contextual and the prior MAPE-K/HITL work is discussed honestly.

This paper is for researchers in self-adaptive systems and LLM-based operations who want a reasonable starting architecture. As submitted it is a plausible workshop or short-paper contribution, not a top-tier archival result. I would send it to peer review, but the reviewers should press on the threshold specification and the abstract's claims. The thinking is coherent and honest; no serious-thinker concerns.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a conceptual framework that integrates the MAPE-K autonomic computing loop with agentic AI (AAI) for autonomous anomaly detection and remediation in microservice-based systems. The framework introduces an 'autonomic threshold' (α) intended to gate human-in-the-loop intervention for high-risk actions, classifies actions into low, medium, and high risk, and describes how AAI could perform monitoring, analysis, planning, and execution using tools such as Ansible. The paper is explicitly a vision paper: it presents no implementation, dataset, or empirical evaluation, and the authors acknowledge in Section 5.5 (Limitation 2G) that future empirical validation is required.

Significance. If the proposed integration of MAPE-K and agentic AI were realized, it could offer a structured approach to applying LLM-based agents to microservice management, particularly the idea of an autonomic threshold for balancing autonomy with human oversight. The paper is honest about its limitations and clearly positions itself relative to prior work such as Donakanti et al. [15] and Cleland-Huang et al. [12]. However, the central mechanism—the autonomic threshold α—is not operationally defined, and the abstract's claim of 'practical, industry-ready solutions' is not supported by the presented specification. As a vision paper, it provides a reasonable research agenda, but the current claims outpace the evidence.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.3] The autonomic threshold α is never given an operational definition. The text states that α is 'based on how many HR actions are associated with each action formulated in the plan' and that a weighted sum of HR action subtypes could be computed, but no formula, units, or calibration procedure is provided. Section 4.4 further admits that 'no current definition of autonomic threshold exists.' Because α is the mechanism that decides when the AAI must stop and involve a human, the framework cannot be instantiated or tested as described. Provide a concrete definition, e.g., α = Σ w_i·I(HR_i) over the actions in the plan, with a stated threshold value or a learning/calibration procedure.
[Section 4.3] The Low/Medium/High risk classification is introduced through illustrative examples (e.g., parameter tuning as LR, increasing virtual memory as MR, certificate management as HR), but no method is given for how the AAI would classify an arbitrary action into a risk level. This is load-bearing because the α trigger depends on HR action counts. Define a classification procedure, such as a rule-based taxonomy, a set of criteria based on system impact, or a learned classifier with clear inputs.
[Abstract and Section 1] The abstract claims the framework 'offers practical, industry-ready solutions' and the introduction describes it as 'the first framework that integrates MAPE-K and agentic AI concepts.' Given that no implementation or evaluation is presented, and the authors themselves state in Section 5.5 (Limitation 2G) that 'future empirical validation will lay the cornerstone,' these claims are not supported. The paper should be positioned explicitly as a vision/position paper, and the claims should be tempered to reflect the conceptual nature of the contribution.
[Section 2 and Section 4] The novelty claim needs sharper differentiation from prior work. Donakanti et al. [15] already incorporated LLMs into a MAPE-like cycle, and Cleland-Huang et al. [12] inserted human-in-the-loop tasks into MAPE-K. The differences listed (separation of analyze/plan, human oversight of execution, distributed target system) are reasonable, but the 'first framework' claim should be argued more explicitly against these baselines, rather than asserted, to avoid being undercut by the cited prior work.

minor comments (5)

[References] The reference list contains typos and formatting inconsistencies; for example, reference [1] has 'Lcnarduzzi' instead of 'Lenarduzzi', and several entries use 'et al.' without full author lists. Standardize the reference format.
[Figure 1] Figure 1 is referenced but not explained in detail in the text; the meaning of the labels 'LR / MR HR', 'Ansible', and 'Humans' in the figure is unclear without additional description.
[Section 4.1] The statement that monitoring 'should be conducted efficiently when sufficient data is collected' is vague; specify what constitutes sufficient data or how sufficiency is determined.
[Section 4.4] The term 'autonomic threshold' is used in Section 4.3 and Section 4.4 with slightly different phrasing (e.g., 'value α' vs. 'definition of autonomic threshold'); define the term once and use it consistently.
[Section 2] The discussion of the organizational layer mentions detecting 'organizational coupling' but does not describe what data or techniques the AAI would use; a concrete example would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a conceptual vision proposal with no fitted parameters, no equations, and no derivation chain that reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This is a vision/position paper, not a derivation or empirical study. There are no mathematical equations, no fitted parameters, no benchmarks, and no predictions that are statistically forced by construction. The central claim is the proposal itself: integrating MAPE-K with agentic AI for microservice anomaly management. The 'autonomic threshold' alpha is admittedly not yet operationally defined (Section 4.4 states 'no current definition of autonomic threshold exists, i.e., how to decide when the HITL is needed'), but that is an incompleteness or falsifiability concern, not circularity: alpha is not fitted from data and then renamed as a prediction. The paper openly defers empirical validation (Limitation 2G: 'There is no historical data on autonomic AAI-based anomaly detection and remediation systems for microservices'), so no result is claimed to be derived from its own assumptions. Self-citations such as [16], [17], and [18] are used for background context (generative AI for software architecture, LLM security risk analysis) and are not load-bearing for the framework's design. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz, or prior result by the same authors is invoked to forbid alternatives or to force the proposed design. Therefore the derivation chain, such as it is, is self-contained as a proposal, and there is no circularity to flag.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests primarily on domain assumptions about agentic AI capability and the validity of the risk-level and threshold scheme. There are no fitted parameters or empirical derivations; the autonomic threshold is a proposed free parameter with no assigned value. The paper's own limitations acknowledge these are unverified assumptions.

free parameters (1)

Autonomic threshold alpha
A proposed threshold for the number (or weighted sum) of high-risk actions an agent may perform before human intervention is required. No value is specified in the paper; it is introduced in Section 4.3 as the mechanism for balancing autonomy and control.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Agentic AI (LLM-based agents) can reliably perform anomaly detection, analysis, planning, and remediation in microservice systems
Assumed throughout Section 4; the paper provides no evidence. The authors state in Section 5.5 (Limitation 2G) that there is no historical data for such systems.
domain assumption Risk levels (Low, Medium, High) can be assigned to management actions and the threshold alpha can correctly gate human intervention
Introduced in Section 4.3 as part of the design; no empirical basis is given for the risk categorization or threshold calibration.
domain assumption Existing automation tools such as Ansible can act as reliable actuators for the framework
Stated in Sections 2.1 and 4.4; the paper assumes Ansible playbooks can express and execute the planned actions, with no demonstration.

invented entities (1)

Autonomic threshold (alpha)
purpose: Determines when the AI agent must stop acting and hand over high-risk actions to a human operator, balancing autonomy with control.
Introduced in Section 4.3 as a new concept. No quantitative definition or falsifiable validation is provided; it is a design construct, not an empirically grounded entity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Autonomic Microservice Management via Agentic AI and MAPE-K Integration." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MONYTZSI

@misc{pith2026250622185,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Autonomic Microservice Management via Agentic AI and MAPE-K Integration},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MONYTZSI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22185}
}

read the original abstract

While microservices are revolutionizing cloud computing by offering unparalleled scalability and independent deployment, their decentralized nature poses significant security and management challenges that can threaten system stability. We propose a framework based on MAPE-K, which leverages agentic AI, for autonomous anomaly detection and remediation to address the daunting task of highly distributed system management. Our framework offers practical, industry-ready solutions for maintaining robust and secure microservices. Practitioners and researchers can customize the framework to enhance system stability, reduce downtime, and monitor broader system quality attributes such as system performance level, resilience, security, and anomaly management, among others.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22185 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Diagram on the interaction between AAI and MAPE-K components. in daily routine monitoring and anomaly detection, which leads them to pay attention to higher-level planning and optimization with consequent improvements in resilience and efficiency. 4 Design This section presents the envisioned framework for autonomous anomaly detection and remediation leveraging Agentic AIs. We designed our framework around the MAP… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Overall risk associated framework design. goal setting, resource allocation, risk assessment, action plans, and feedback integration from the KB. In particular, the knowledge base contains data from the analysis stage, which is vital to obtaining information regarding the anomalies and ensuring the action plan is oriented toward efficient remediation of the detected anomalies. Agentic AI. AAI is vital in consideri… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[15]

In: 2024 IEEE 21st International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C)

Donakanti, R., Jain, P., Kulkarni, S., Vaidhyanathan, K.: Reimagining self- adaptation in the age of large language models. In: 2024 IEEE 21st International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C). pp. 171–174. IEEE (2024)

work page 2024
[12]

In: Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems

Cleland-Huang, J., et al.: Extending mape-k to support human-machine teaming. In: Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems. p. 120–131 (2022)

work page 2022
[1]

In: 2024 50th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)

Akbar, M.A., Esposito, M., Hyrynsalmi, S., Kumar, K.D., Lcnarduzzi, V., Li, X., Mehraj, A., Mikkonen, T., Moreschini, S., Makitalo, N., Oivo, M., Paavonen, A.S., Parveen, R., Smolander, K., Su, R., Systa, K., Taibi, D., Yang, N., Zhang, Z., Zohaib, M.: 6gsoft: Software for edge-to-cloud continuum. In: 2024 50th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering...

work page 2024
[2]

In: International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE)

AlMaruf,A.,etal.:Usingmicroservicetelemetrydataforsystemdynamicanalysis. In: International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE). pp. 29–38 (2022)

work page 2022
[3]

Amoroso d’Aragona, D., Li, X., Cerny, T., Janes, A., Lenarduzzi, V., Taibi, D.: One microservice per developer: is this the trend in oss? In: European Conference on Service-Oriented and Cloud Computing. pp. 19–34. Springer (2023)

work page 2023
[4]

Annual Reviews in Control49, 15–26 (2020)

Antsaklis, P.: Autonomy and metrics of autonomy. Annual Reviews in Control49, 15–26 (2020)

work page 2020
[5]

IEEE Access (2024) Autonomic Microservice Management via AAI and MAPE-K Integration 13

Araújo, G., et al.: Energy consumption in microservices architectures: a systematic literature review. IEEE Access (2024) Autonomic Microservice Management via AAI and MAPE-K Integration 13

work page 2024
[6]

In: European Conference on Software Architecture

Bakhtin, A., Li, X., Taibi, D.: Temporal community detection in developer collab- oration networks of microservice projects. In: European Conference on Software Architecture. pp. 174–182. Springer (2024)

work page 2024

Show all 42 references

[7]

Brumani, T.: Microservices-based autonomous anomaly detection for mobile net- work observability (2022)

2022
[8]

In: 2022 IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE)

Cerny, T., et al.: Microservice architecture reconstruction and visualization tech- niques: A review. In: 2022 IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE). pp. 39–48. IEEE (2022)

2022
[9]

In: 2022 IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE)

Cerny, T., et al.: Microvision: Static analysis-based approach to visualizing mi- croservices in augmented reality. In: 2022 IEEE International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE). pp. 49–58. IEEE (2022)

2022
[10]

Journal of Systems and Software206, 111829 (2023)

Cerny, T., et al.: Catalog and detection techniques of microservice anti-patterns and bad smells: A tertiary study. Journal of Systems and Software206, 111829 (2023)

2023
[11]

In: Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency

Chan, A.e.a.: Harms from increasingly agentic algorithmic systems. In: Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. p. 651–666. FAccT ’23 (2023)

2023
[13]

Datamation14(4), 28–31 (1968)

Conway, M.E.: How do committees invent. Datamation14(4), 28–31 (1968)

1968
[14]

In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C)

De Sanctis, M., Muccini, H., Vaidhyanathan, K.: Data-driven adaptation in microservice-based iot architectures. In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C). pp. 59–62. IEEE (2020)

2020
[16]

applications, trends, challenges, and future directions

Esposito, M., Li, X., Moreschini, S., Ahmad, N., Cerny, T., Vaidhyanathan, K., Lenarduzzi, V., Taibi, D.: Generative ai for software architecture. applications, trends, challenges, and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.13310 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[17]

442–445 (2024)

Esposito, M., Palagiano, F.: Leveraging large language models for preliminary se- curity risk analysis: A mission-critical case study p. 442–445 (2024)

2024
[18]

Esposito, M., Palagiano, F., Lenarduzzi, V., Taibi, D.: On large language models in mission-critical it governance: Are we ready yet? ICSE-SEIP ’25 (2024)

2024
[19]

IEEE Software 41(1), 142–144 (2024)

Johnson, B., Menzies, T.: Ethics: Why software engineers can’t afford to look away. IEEE Software 41(1), 142–144 (2024)

2024
[20]

Computer36(1), 41–50 (2003)

Kephart, J., et al.: The vision of autonomic computing. Computer36(1), 41–50 (2003)

2003
[21]

In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C)

Krause, A., et al.: Microservice decomposition via static and dynamic analysis of the monolith. In: 2020 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C). pp. 9–16. IEEE (2020)

2020
[22]

Knowledge-Based Systems 286, 111298 (2024)

Legaspi, R., et al.: The sense of agency in human–ai interactions. Knowledge-Based Systems 286, 111298 (2024)

2024
[23]

In: 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Big Data

Li, M., et al.: Microservice anomaly detection based on tracing data using semi- supervised learning. In: 4th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Big Data. pp. 38–44 (2021)

2021
[24]

In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Service- Oriented System Engineering (SOSE)

Li, X., et al.: Analyzing organizational structure of microservice projects based on contributor collaboration. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Service- Oriented System Engineering (SOSE). pp. 1–8. IEEE (2023) 14 M. Esposito et al

2023
[25]

In: International Conference on Software Architecture (2024)

Li, X., et al.: Toward collaboration optimization in microservice projects based on developer personalities. In: International Conference on Software Architecture (2024)

2024
[26]

IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 19(5), 3087–3100 (2021)

Ma, M., et al.: Servicerank: Root cause identification of anomaly in large-scale mi- croservice architectures. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 19(5), 3087–3100 (2021)

2021
[27]

In: Advanced Information Networking and Applications: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Advanced Information Net- working and Applications (AINA-2019) 33

Magableh, B., Almiani, M.: A self healing microservices architecture: A case study in docker swarm cluster. In: Advanced Information Networking and Applications: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Advanced Information Net- working and Applications (AINA-2019) ...

2020
[28]

In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Au- tonomic Computing (ICAC)

Nguyen, P., Nahrstedt, K.: Monad: Self-adaptive micro-service infrastructure for heterogeneous scientific workflows. In: 2017 IEEE International Conference on Au- tonomic Computing (ICAC). pp. 187–196. IEEE (2017)

2017
[29]

In: 2012 ACM Research in Applied Computation Symposium

Papotti, P.E., et al.: Reducing time and effort in legacy systems reengineering to mdd using metaprogramming. In: 2012 ACM Research in Applied Computation Symposium. pp. 348–355 (2012)

2012
[30]

Pham, L., Zhang, H., Ha, H., Salim, F., Zhang, X.: Rcaeval: A benchmark for root causeanalysisofmicroservicesystemswithtelemetrydata(arXiv:2412.17015)(Feb 2025), arXiv:2412.17015

2025 arXiv
[31]

In: 2021 Inter- national Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Sys- tems (SEAMS)

Pimentel, E., Pereira, W., Maia, P.H.M., Cortés, M.I., et al.: Self-adaptive microservice-based systems-landscape and research opportunities. In: 2021 Inter- national Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Sys- tems (SEAMS). pp. 167–178. IEEE (2021)

2021
[32]

SN Computer Science4(5), 577 (2023)

Raj, V., et al.: Assessing the impact of migration from soa to microservices archi- tecture. SN Computer Science4(5), 577 (2023)

2023
[33]

In: 2017 IEEE interna- tional conference on software maintenance and evolution (ICSME)

Sampaio, A.R., et al.: Supporting microservice evolution. In: 2017 IEEE interna- tional conference on software maintenance and evolution (ICSME). pp. 539–543. IEEE (2017)

2017
[34]

Research Paper, Ope- nAI, December (2023)

Shavit, Y., et al.: Practices for governing agentic ai systems. Research Paper, Ope- nAI, December (2023)

2023
[35]

ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 55(3), 1–39 (2022)

Soldani, J., et al.: Anomaly detection and failure root cause analysis in (micro) service-based cloud applications: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 55(3), 1–39 (2022)

2022
[36]

Souppaya,M.,Morello,J.,Scarfone,K.:Applicationcontainersecurityguide.Tech. Rep. SP 800-190, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) (2017)

2017
[37]

IEEE Software35(3), 56–62 (2018)

Taibi, D., et al.: On the definition of microservice bad smells. IEEE Software35(3), 56–62 (2018)

2018
[38]

In: Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems II: International Seminar, Dagstuhl Castle

Weyns, D., et al.: On patterns for decentralized control in self-adaptive systems. In: Software Engineering for Self-Adaptive Systems II: International Seminar, Dagstuhl Castle. pp. 76–107. Springer (2013)

2013
[39]

IEEE Transactions on technology and society2(1), 43–53 (2021)

Wright, S.A.: Measuring dao autonomy: Lessons from other autonomous systems. IEEE Transactions on technology and society2(1), 43–53 (2021)

2021
[40]

In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering

Yu, G., Chen, P., Li, Y., Chen, H., Li, X., Zheng, Z.: Nezha: Interpretable fine- grained root causes analysis for microservices on multi-modal observability data. In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations o...

2023
[41]

In: 44th International Conference on Software Engineering

Zhang, C., et al.: Deeptralog: Trace-log combined microservice anomaly detection through graph-based deep learning. In: 44th International Conference on Software Engineering. pp. 623–634 (2022)

2022
[506]

IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA (Aug 2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [15]

In: 2024 IEEE 21st International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C)

Donakanti, R., Jain, P., Kulkarni, S., Vaidhyanathan, K.: Reimagining self- adaptation in the age of large language models. In: 2024 IEEE 21st International Conference on Software Architecture Companion (ICSA-C). pp. 171–174. IEEE (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [12]

In: Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems

Cleland-Huang, J., et al.: Extending mape-k to support human-machine teaming. In: Symposium on Software Engineering for Adaptive and Self-Managing Systems. p. 120–131 (2022)

work page 2022

[3] [1]

In: 2024 50th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA)

Akbar, M.A., Esposito, M., Hyrynsalmi, S., Kumar, K.D., Lcnarduzzi, V., Li, X., Mehraj, A., Mikkonen, T., Moreschini, S., Makitalo, N., Oivo, M., Paavonen, A.S., Parveen, R., Smolander, K., Su, R., Systa, K., Taibi, D., Yang, N., Zhang, Z., Zohaib, M.: 6gsoft: Software for edge-to-cloud continuum. In: 2024 50th Euromicro Conference on Software Engineering...

work page 2024

[4] [2]

In: International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE)

AlMaruf,A.,etal.:Usingmicroservicetelemetrydataforsystemdynamicanalysis. In: International Conference on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE). pp. 29–38 (2022)

work page 2022

[5] [3]

Amoroso d’Aragona, D., Li, X., Cerny, T., Janes, A., Lenarduzzi, V., Taibi, D.: One microservice per developer: is this the trend in oss? In: European Conference on Service-Oriented and Cloud Computing. pp. 19–34. Springer (2023)

work page 2023

[6] [4]

Annual Reviews in Control49, 15–26 (2020)

Antsaklis, P.: Autonomy and metrics of autonomy. Annual Reviews in Control49, 15–26 (2020)

work page 2020

[7] [5]

IEEE Access (2024) Autonomic Microservice Management via AAI and MAPE-K Integration 13

Araújo, G., et al.: Energy consumption in microservices architectures: a systematic literature review. IEEE Access (2024) Autonomic Microservice Management via AAI and MAPE-K Integration 13

work page 2024

[8] [6]

In: European Conference on Software Architecture

Bakhtin, A., Li, X., Taibi, D.: Temporal community detection in developer collab- oration networks of microservice projects. In: European Conference on Software Architecture. pp. 174–182. Springer (2024)

work page 2024