aiqbench analysis
This research demonstrates that while machine learning models can robustly predict Linux system failures across unseen workloads, diagnostic explainability remains fragile when workload conditions shift. The study highlights a critical gap where high detection accuracy does not guarantee reliable root-cause identification without specialized causal analysis and complementary mechanisms. For AI practitioners in systems engineering, the key takeaway is that trustworthy operational alerts require more than just predictive performance; they demand rigorous evaluation of generalization limits for failure mode diagnosis.
Understanding Online Failure Prediction in Linux Through Complementary Multi-View Explainability
arXiv:2608.00651v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Accurate Online Failure Prediction (OFP) has been shown to be feasible in Operating Systems (OSs) settings, but prediction alone is not sufficient for practical adoption. Without diagnostic insight, operators have limited basis to trust alerts or decide how to respond. Moreover, even when predictive accuracy is high, it is often unclear whether models are capturing meaningful failure processes or merely exploiting workload-specific noise and incidental correlations in telemetry. This paper reports a practical experience building and evaluating an explainable OFP pipeline for Linux OSs. We combine consensus-based feature selection for detection with temporal onset analysis, subsystemlevel causal analysis, and complementary diagnostic mechanisms to support failure interpretation. Evaluated under strict crossworkload conditions with frozen training artifacts, it achieved 91-94% detection on unseen workloads without retraining, while maintaining false alarm rates below 1%. However, failure mode diagnosis proved substantially more sensitive to workload shift, and several diagnostics mechanisms showed limited effectiveness for specific failure types. Our experience highlights three main lessons: i) detection generalizes more robustly than diagnosis across workload changes; ii) early-warning capability depends strongly on the failure mode, ranging from 38 to 215 seconds in our study; and iii) unseen failure modes are not reliably diagnosable from related training modes alone, providing 0% accuracy under Leave-One-Mode-Out (LOMO) evaluation. Taken together, these results show the value of complementary explainability mechanisms for interpreting accurate failure predictions, revealing when predictive signals reflect transferable failure structure and when diagnostic generalization breaks down under workload variation.
Abstract:Accurate Online Failure Prediction (OFP) has been shown to be feasible in Operating Systems (OSs) settings, but prediction alone is not sufficient for practical adoption. Without diagnostic insight, operators have limited basis to trust alerts or decide how to respond. Moreover, even when predictive accuracy is high, it is often unclear whether models are capturing meaningful failure processes or merely exploiting workload-specific noise and incidental correlations in telemetry. This paper reports a practical experience building and evaluating an explainable OFP pipeline for Linux OSs. We combine consensus-based feature selection for detection with temporal onset analysis, subsystemlevel causal analysis, and complementary diagnostic mechanisms to support failure interpretation. Evaluated under strict crossworkload conditions with frozen training artifacts, it achieved 91-94% detection on unseen workloads without retraining, while maintaining false alarm rates below 1%. However, failure mode diagnosis proved substantially more sensitive to workload shift, and several diagnostics mechanisms showed limited effectiveness for specific failure types. Our experience highlights three main lessons: i) detection generalizes more robustly than diagnosis across workload changes; ii) early-warning capability depends strongly on the failure mode, ranging from 38 to 215 seconds in our study; and iii) unseen failure modes are not reliably diagnosable from related training modes alone, providing 0% accuracy under Leave-One-Mode-Out (LOMO) evaluation. Taken together, these results show the value of complementary explainability mechanisms for interpreting accurate failure predictions, revealing when predictive signals reflect transferable failure structure and when diagnostic generalization breaks down under workload variation.
Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2608.00651 [cs.SE]
(or arXiv:2608.00651v1 [cs.SE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.00651 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 338 words
