用图结构引导大模型,让K8s故障诊断更可信可审计
Auditable Graph-Guided Root Cause Analysis for Kubernetes Incidents
- 构建证据图与状态机,结合大模型推理和确定性工具验证
- 在23个场景中根因定位F1从0.6087提升至0.9130
- 通过多层检查确保结论可靠,适合运维系统研发者
Kubernetes故障诊断的可靠性依赖于根因分析系统基于真实事件证据而非特定场景捷径。我们提出图遍历代理(Graph Traversal Agent),融合大模型推理与专用工具,以类型化证据图为推理基础,通过确定性图操作和工具收集证据、约束搜索范围并验证结论。将只读证据采集、传播感知诊断、有限执行及独立验证等约束映射为类型化事件图、LangGraph遍历状态机与独立验证阶段。在由单一qwen-plus裁判评分的ITBench OpenTelemetry-demo快照上,该审计系统在23个共用场景中的根因实体F1从0.6087提升至0.9130。提示层消融实验显示,去除场景特异性提示后,19个场景子集仍保持0.6958 F1,该增益集中于ChaosMesh场景,其真实根因已存在于证据图中,故视为基准耦合而非跨集群通用证据。轻量级检查包括同裁判对比、提示消融、级联源验证与遥测无泄漏测试,用于判定结论支持、待定或超出范围。研究限定于ITBench OpenTelemetry-demo快照,线上集群试验作为工程压力测试,但告警状态与追踪可用性不稳定,无法进行可控评分,故不宣称生产就绪或平均修复时间。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Kubernetes incidents are diagnosed reliably only when a root-cause system's reported gains come from incident evidence rather than scenario-specific shortcuts. We present Graph Traversal Agent, a graph-guided RCA agent that combines LLM reasoning with specialized tools. The model reasons over a typed evidence graph, while deterministic graph and tool operations collect evidence, bound the search, and check proposed verdicts. We map operational constraints, including read-only evidence collection, propagation-aware diagnosis, bounded execution, and independently validated verdicts, to a typed incident graph, a LangGraph traversal state machine, and a separate validation stage. On ITBench snapshots scored by one fixed qwen-plus judge, the audited system raises root-cause-entity F1 over an earlier iteration of the same system from 0.6087 to 0.9130 on a 23-scenario common subset. A prompt-level ablation separates prompt-tuned gains from gains that survive once scenario-specific hints are removed: the stripped-prompt configuration retains 0.6958 F1 on a 19-scenario subset. The surviving gain concentrates on ChaosMesh scenarios whose ground-truth root cause is the injected fault object already present in the evidence graph, so we report it as benchmark-coupled rather than broad cross-cluster RCA evidence. Lightweight checks, including same-judge comparison, prompt-level ablation, cascade-source checking, and a telemetry no-leak test, mark claims as supported, pending, or out of scope. We scope the work to ITBench OpenTelemetry-demo snapshots. Live-cluster trials served as an engineering stress test, but alert state and trace availability did not stay stable enough for controlled scoring, so we make no production-readiness or mean-time-to-repair claim.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。