Papers for

cloud operations teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Maple supports ongoing optimization with language and memory

MAPLE: Memory-Augmented Planning with Language and Evolution

Abstract: Domain practitioners understand their business constraints but may lack operations-research expertise or dedicated support. LLM-based optimization agents translate natural-language requirements into models or solver programs that established optimization tools can execute. This progress makes optimization more accessible, but real-world operations are dynamic: changing demand, resources, and priorities require updates to data, constraints, and objectives. Methods centered on isolated requests offer limited support for rapid adaptation that preserves earlier decisions and reuses useful search results. We introduce MAPLE (Memory-Augmented Planning with Language and Evolution), an agent for maintaining optimization problems through successive natural-language requests. MAPLE combines language-based problem construction with mathematical programming and evolutionary search. It retains the optimization program, accepted plans, earlier updates, and candidate solutions for subsequent requests. We introduce NLDO, a benchmark of 15 trajectories and 180 updates spanning selection, scheduling, rostering, routing, and cloud-resource placement. In the main evaluation, MAPLE completes all trajectories and achieves online scalar quality of 0.951 and a Pareto hypervolume ratio of 0.875. Controlled comparisons further show that maintaining executable state improves update validity and can preserve useful search information across substantial revisions.

Thu 10 SeptArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Optimization problems in real life often change over time, requiring updates while keeping past good decisions. The authors present MAPLE, a system that uses natural language requests combined with mathematical and evolutionary methods to update and maintain optimization solutions. MAPLE remembers earlier plans and candidate solutions to help quickly adapt to changes. Their tests show MAPLE effectively handles sequences of updates in diverse optimization tasks like scheduling and routing.
Open 2609.11636v1

AI safely fixes backend failures using sandbox and risk checks

Can AI Remediate Backend Failures Safely? GuardedAct with Blast-Radius-Aware Sandboxing

Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising capabilities in generating remediation actions for microservice failures. However, directly executing AI-generated repair actions in production risks cascading collateral damage. We propose GuardedAct, a sandbox-first remediation framework that interposes a blast-radius-aware verification layer between the LLM action generator and the production environment. GuardedAct operates in four phases: (1) ingesting a diagnosis report together with the live system topology and recent telemetry, (2) prompting an LLM to produce a ranked list of candidate remediation actions, (3) simulating each action in a lightweight digital-twin sandbox that estimates the blast radius and assigns a risk label, and (4) enforcing a rollback-confidence gate that auto-executes only low-risk actions while escalating high-risk ones for human review. We evaluate GuardedAct on five fault scenarios injected into the DeathStarBench social-network application. Experimental results show that GuardedAct achieves an overall recovery rate of 87.4% while reducing collateral damage by 79.7% relative to direct LLM execution (from 25.6% to 5.2%), at the cost of a modest sandbox-induced increase in mean time to recovery (approximately 8 s). Ablation studies confirm that each component contributes meaningfully to the safety-speed trade-off.

Thu 10 SeptDistributed, Parallel, and Cluster ComputingSoftware Engineering
The gist
Fixing backend computer problems automatically with AI risks causing more trouble if done directly. The authors introduce GuardedAct, a system that tests AI-recommended fixes in a safe copy of the system to estimate their risk before applying them. Low-risk fixes are applied immediately, while risky ones go for human review. Tests show this approach fixes most problems while greatly reducing collateral damage, with only a small delay added.
Open 2609.11264v1