arXiv (All)
open access
What a Pooled Leaderboard Does Not Say: Auditing the Scope and Provenance of Method Comparisons in Microservice RCA Benchmarks
Offline benchmarks for microservice root cause analysis (RCA) rank methods by a score pooled over several applications, and a pooled lead leaves two things unstated: on which of the systems it holds, and how the score was produced. We audit both on three public benchmark families (OpenRCA, RCAEval,
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Does Graph Structure Earn Its Place in Microservice Root-Cause Analysis? A Controlled Study on RCAEval, and What the Benchmark Was Really Measuring#1063280
- Rethinking Tool Design for Agentic RCA: A Controlled Empirical Study#1200660
- Beyond Fault Localization: A Trajectory-Level Study of LLM Agents for Microservice Root Cause Analysis#1298102
- What Can a Leaderboard Certify? Compositional Controllability for Fair Evaluation and Training of Biomedical Literature-Review Agents#1116649
- Multi-Agent Systems for Root Cause Analysis in Microservices#155366
Record · ID 1343626
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive