Can LLMs Really Recover Microservice Failures? A Recovery-Aware Evaluation of Diagnosis-to-Action Reasoning
On the map: LLM reasoning → Reasoning for agents, planning and code
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to interpret operational evidence and assist incident response in cloud-native microservice systems. However, recovery-oriented use cases require more than identifying a root cause. After observing symptoms and diagnosing a fault, an operator or agent must translate the diagnosis into a concrete recovery action, apply it to an admissible target, and verify that service health has been restored. Existing RCA and log-analysis evaluations are well-suited to diagnosis, but they do not characterize this subsequent action decision. This paper presents R2Act, a recovery-action evaluation framework for post-diagnosis incident response. R2Act defines an incident schema, quality gate, action-space representation, recovery-validity metrics, offline evaluator, and live-replay protocol. We instantiate the framework as a benchmark dataset of 302 quality-audited Kubernetes incidents from system. Each incident provides synchronized multi-modal observations, root-cause labels, an incident-specific action space, and annotated valid and invalid recovery plans. We evaluate heuristic, supervised, RCA-oriented, deep log, and LLM-based methods. The strongest RAG-based LLMs reach 91.4%--99.7% root-cause service accuracy, yet their recovery validity remains only 36.8%--60.3%. Even when both the root-cause service and fault type are correct, recovery-oriented methods still choose invalid actions for 39.5%--62.0% of correctly diagnosed incidents. Overall, this work reveals that many recovery failures arise not from missing diagnostic knowledge, but from the difficulty of translating diagnostic evidence into valid recovery actions and admissible targets. This work provides a reproducible, simplified starting point for research and evaluation.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Reasoning for agents, planning and code, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning. Builds on 5 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Jul 2026.
Builds on
5 of 34 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 4
- 2023RCAgent: Cloud Root Cause Analysis by Autonomous Agents with Tool-Augmented Large Language Modelscited by 62
- 2024GenKubeSec: LLM-Based Kubernetes Misconfiguration Detection, Localization, Reasoning, and Remediationcited by 11
- 2023PyRCA: A Library for Metric-based Root Cause Analysiscited by 3
- 2026LogSieve: Task-Aware CI Log Reduction for Sustainable LLM-Based Analysiscited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.
3 papers.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026A Multi-Dataset Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Agents in Microservice Failure Diagnosis
- 2026GALA: Graph-Augmented LLM Agents for Root Cause Analysis and Incident Response in Microservices
- 2026STAR: A Stage-attributed Triage and Repair framework for RCA Agents in Microservices
- 2025TrioXpert: An Automated Incident Management Framework for Microservice System
- 2026EviRCA: Decoupling Evidence Extraction from Reasoning for Microservice Root-Cause Analysis
- 2026Beyond Fault Localization: A Trajectory-Level Study of LLM Agents for Microservice Root Cause Analysis
- 2026Stalled, Biased, and Confused: Uncovering Reasoning Failures in LLMs for Cloud-Based Root Cause Analysis
- 2026Cloud-OpsBench: A Reproducible Benchmark for Agentic Root Cause Analysis in Cloud Systems