arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2601.22264

Predicting Intermittent Job Failure Categories for Diagnosis Using Few-Shot Fine-Tuned Language Models

Abstract

In principle, Continuous Integration (CI) pipeline failures provide valuable feedback to developers on code-related errors. In practice, however, pipeline jobs often fail intermittently due to non-deterministic tests, network outages, infrastructure failures, resource exhaustion, and other reliability issues. These intermittent (flaky) job failures lead to substantial inefficiencies: wasted computational resources from repeated reruns and significant diagnosis time that distracts developers from core activities and often requires intervention from specialized teams. Prior work has proposed machine learning techniques to detect intermittent failures, but does not address the subsequent diagnosis challenge. To fill this gap, we introduce FlaXifyer, a few-shot learning approach for predicting intermittent job failure categories using pre-trained language models. FlaXifyer requires only job execution logs and achieves 84.3% Macro F1 and 92.0% Top-2 accuracy with just 12 labeled examples per category. We also propose LogSift, an interpretability technique that identifies influential log statements in under one second, reducing review effort by 74.4% while surfacing relevant failure information in 87% of cases. Evaluation on 2,458 job failures from TELUS demonstrates that FlaXifyer and LogSift enable effective automated triage, accelerate failure diagnosis, and pave the way towards the automated resolution of intermittent job failures.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Henri Aïdasso, Francis Bordeleau, Ali Tizghadam. 2026-04-04. Predicting Intermittent Job Failure Categories for Diagnosis Using Few-Shot Fine-Tuned Language Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.22264

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE