IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,216,552
Granted Patent B2
US 12,216,552 · App. 17/056,744 · Granted Feb 4, 2025

Multi-phase cloud service node error prediction based on minimization function with cost ratio and false positive detection

Inventors: Qingwei Lin (Beijing, CN); Kaixin Sui (Beijing, CN); Yong Xu (Beijing, CN)
Assignee: Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC
G06F11/1484G06F9/45558G06F9/4856G06F9/5072G06F11/142G06N5/01G06F2009/45562G06F2009/4557G06F2009/45591
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,216,552
App. No.
17/056,744
Filed
Nov 18, 2020
Granted
Feb 4, 2025
Kind
B2
Examiner
XU, ZUJIA
Art Unit
2195
USPC
718/1
Abstract

Systems and techniques for multi-phase cloud service node error prediction are described herein. A set of spatial metrics and a set of temporal metrics may be obtained for node devices in a cloud computing platform. The node devices may be evaluated using a spatial machine learning model and a temporal machine learning model to create a spatial output and a temporal output. One or more potentially faulty nodes may be determined based on an evaluation of the spatial output and the temporal output using a ranking model. The one or more potentially faulty nodes may be a subset of the node devices. One or more migration source nodes may be identified from one or more potentially faulty nodes. The one or more migration source nodes may be identified by minimization of a cost of false positive and false negative node detection.

Claims (60)

1. A system for predicting computing node failure in a cloud computing platform, the system comprising:

at least one processor; and

memory including instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations to:

obtain a set of spatial metrics and a set of temporal metrics for computing node devices in the cloud computing platform, the set of spatial metrics comprising spatial signals from hardware and software components shared by the computing node devices, and the set of temporal metrics comprising temporal signals from hardware and software components for each computing node device of the computing node devices;

evaluate the computing node devices using a spatial machine learning model and the set of spatial metrics and using a temporal machine learning model and the set of temporal metrics to create a spatial output and a temporal output for each computing node device of the computing node devices;

determine one or more potentially faulty computing node devices based on an evaluation of the spatial output and the temporal output using a ranking model, wherein the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices is a subset of the computing node devices;

identify one or more migration source computing no de devices from the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices, wherein a number of computing node devices included in the one or more migration source computing node devices are determined using a threshold calculated by applying a minimization function to a cost ratio and a predicted number of false positive detections included in the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices and a predicted number of false negative detections excluded from the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices, the cost ratio representing a ratio between a historical cost of false positive detection and a historical cost of false negative detection;

identify one or more migration target computing node devices from one or more potentially healthy computing node devices; and

migrate a virtual machine (VM) from a faulty computing node device of the one or more migration source computing node devices to a healthy computing node device of the one or more migration target computing node devices.

2. The system of claim 1 , wherein the memory further includes instructions to generate the spatial machine learning model using random forest training.

3. The system of claim 1 , wherein memory further includes instructions to generate the temporal machine learning model using long short-term memory training.

4. The system of claim 1 , wherein the instructions to determine the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices further includes instructions to:

obtain a spatial output vector of trees of the spatial machine learning model;

obtain a temporal output vector of a dense layer of the temporal machine learning model;

concatenate the spatial output vector and the temporal output vector to form an input vector for the ranking model; and

generate a ranking of the computing node devices using the ranking model, wherein the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices is a subset of the ranked computing node devices.

5. The system of claim 1 , wherein the set of temporal metrics are obtained from respective computing node devices of the cloud computing platform, wherein a computing node device includes a physical computing device that hosts one or more virtual machines (VMs).

6. The system of claim 1 , wherein the set of spatial metrics are obtained from a node controller for respective computing node devices of the cloud computing platform.

7. The system of claim 1 , wherein the spatial machine learning model is generated using a training set of spatial metrics, and wherein the training set of spatial metrics include metrics shared by two or more respective computing node devices.

8. The system of claim 1 , wherein the temporal machine learning model is generated using a training set of temporal metrics, and wherein the training set of temporal metrics include metrics individual to respective computing node devices.

9. The system of claim 1 , the memory further including instructions to:

identify the one or more potentially healthy computing node devices based on the evaluation of the spatial output and the temporal output using the ranking model, wherein the one or more potentially healthy computing node devices is a subset of the computing node devices.

10. The system of claim 1 , the memory further including instructions to:

identify the one or more potentially healthy computing node devices based on the evaluation of the spatial output and the temporal output using the ranking model, wherein the one or more potentially healthy computing node devices is a subset of the computing node devices;

identify the one or more migration target computing node devices from the one or more potentially healthy computing node devices; and

create a new virtual machine (VM) on a healthy computing node device of the one or more migration target computing node devices in lieu of a faulty node of the one or more migration source computing node devices.

11. A method for predicting computing node failure in a cloud computing platform, the method comprising:

obtaining a set of spatial metrics and a set of temporal metrics for computing node devices in the cloud computing platform, the set of spatial metrics comprising spatial signals from hardware and software components shared by the computing node devices, and the set of temporal metrics comprising temporal signals from hardware and software components for each computing node device of the computing node devices;

evaluating the computing node devices using a spatial machine learning model and the set of spatial metrics and using a temporal machine learning model and the set of temporal metrics to create a spatial output and a temporal output for each computing node device of the computing node devices;

determining one or more potentially faulty computing node devices based on an evaluation of the spatial output and the temporal output using a ranking model, wherein the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices is a subset of the computing node devices;

identifying one or more migration source computing node devices from the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices, wherein a number of computing node devices included in the one or more migration source computing node devices are determined using a threshold calculated by applying a minimization function to a cost ratio and a predicted number of false positive detections included in the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices and a predicted number of false negative detections excluded from the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices, the cost ratio representing a ratio between a historical cost of false positive detection and a historical cost of false negative detection;

identifying one or more migration target computing node devices from one or more potentially healthy computing node devices; and

migrating a virtual machine (VM) from a faulty computing node device of the one or more migration source computing node devices to a healthy computing node device of the one or more migration target computing node devices.

12. The method of claim 11 , wherein determining the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices further comprises:

obtaining a spatial output vector of trees of the spatial machine learning model;

obtaining a temporal output vector of a dense layer of the temporal machine learning model;

concatenating the spatial output vector and the temporal output vector to form an input vector for the ranking model; and

generating a ranking of the computing node devices using the ranking model, wherein the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices is a subset of the ranked computing node devices.

13. The method of claim 11 , wherein the spatial machine learning model is generated using a training set of spatial metrics, and wherein the training set of spatial metrics include metrics shared by two or more respective computing node devices.

14. The method of claim 11 , further comprising:

identifying the one or more potentially healthy computing node devices based on the evaluation of the spatial output and the temporal output using the ranking model, wherein the one or more potentially healthy computing node devices is a subset of the computing node devices.

15. The method of claim 11 , further comprising:

identifying the one or more potentially healthy computing node devices based on the evaluation of the spatial output and the temporal output using the ranking model, wherein the one or more potentially healthy computing node devices is a subset of the computing node devices;

identifying the one or more migration target computing node devices from the one or more potentially healthy computing node devices; and

creating a new virtual machine (VM) on a healthy computing node device of the one or more migration target computing node devices in lieu of a faulty computing node device of the one or more migration source computing node devices.

16. At least one non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising instructions for predicting computing node failure in a cloud computing platform that, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations to:

obtain a set of spatial metrics and a set of temporal metrics for computing node devices in the cloud computing platform, the set of spatial metrics comprising spatial signals from hardware and software components shared by the computing node devices, and the set of temporal metrics comprising temporal signals from hardware and software components for each computing node device of the computing node devices;

evaluate the computing node devices using a spatial machine learning model and the set of spatial metrics and using a temporal machine learning model and the set of temporal metrics to create a spatial output and a temporal output for each computing node device of the computing node devices;

determine one or more potentially faulty computing node devices based on an evaluation of the spatial output and the temporal output using a ranking model, wherein the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices is a subset of the computing node devices;

identify one or more migration source computing node devices from the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices, wherein a number of computing node devices included in the one or more migration source computing node devices are determined using a threshold calculated by applying a minimization function to a cost ratio and a predicted number of false positive detections included in the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices and a predicted number of false negative detections excluded from the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices, the cost ratio representing a ratio between a historical cost of false positive detection and a historical cost of false negative detection;

identify one or more migration target computing node devices from one or more potentially healthy computing node devices; and

migrate a virtual machine (VM) from a faulty computing node device of the one or more migration source computing node devices to a healthy computing node device of the one or more migration target computing node devices.

17. The at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16 , further comprising instructions to generate the spatial machine learning model using random forest training.

18. The at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16 , further comprising instructions to generate the temporal machine learning model using long short-term memory training.

19. The at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16 , wherein the instructions to determine the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices further includes instructions to:

obtain a spatial output vector of trees of the spatial machine learning model;

obtain a temporal output vector of a dense layer of the temporal machine learning model;

concatenate the spatial output vector and the temporal output vector to form an input vector for the ranking model; and

generate a ranking of the computing node devices using the ranking model, wherein the one or more potentially faulty computing node devices is a subset of the ranked computing node devices.

20. The at least one non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 16 , wherein the set of temporal metrics are obtained from respective computing nodes of the cloud computing platform, wherein a node includes a physical computing device that hosts one or more virtual machines (VMs).

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Nov 25, 2020
From: LIN, QINGWEI; SUI, KAIXIN; XU, YONG
To: MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC
Reel/Frame 054466/0873 →
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20210208983A1 · Jul 8, 2021
References Cited (114)
US 8332348B1 · Avery · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 9400731B1 · Preece · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9813379B1 · Shevade et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 10360482B1 · Khare · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 10613962B1 · Delange · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 10769007B2 · Chintalapati et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20040003319A1 · Ukai et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040073855A1 · Maxwell · 2004 [cited by examiner]
US 20070250270A1 · Vaisberg · 2007 [cited by examiner]
US 20100318837A1 · Murphy · 2010 [cited by examiner]
US 20120203888A1 · Balakrishnan et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130117448A1 · Nahum et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140178084A1 · Kuo · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20150135012A1 · Bhalla et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 20150269486A1 · Paxton · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20160196175A1 · Kasahara et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160275648A1 · Honda et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160306675A1 · Wiggers et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160306727A1 · Kato · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20170187592A1 · Ghosh et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170212815A1 · Yushina · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170256158A1 · Kopetz · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170344909A1 · Kurokawa et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180060192A1 · Eggert · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180068554A1 · Naraharisetti et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180240011A1 · Tan · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20190079962A1 · Koepke · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190155622A1 · Chen · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190196920A1 · Andrade Costa et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190243672A1 · Yadav · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190272553A1 · Saini · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 20190277913A1 · Honda · 2019 [cited by examiner]
CN 101467188A · 2009 [cited by applicant]
CN 102932419A · 2013 [cited by applicant]
CN 105677538A · 2016 [cited by applicant]
CN 106796540A · 2017 [cited by applicant]
CN 106846742A · 2017 [cited by applicant]
CN 106969924A · 2017 [cited by applicant]
CN 107463998A · 2017 [cited by applicant]
CN 107564231A · 2018 [cited by applicant]
GB 2508064A · 2014 [cited by applicant]
JP 2010198410A · 2010 [cited by applicant]
WO 2015103534A1 · 2015 [cited by applicant]
WO 2017187207A1 · 2017 [cited by applicant]
“Office Action and Search Report Issued in Chinese Patent Application No. 201880094684.2”, (w/ English Translation), Mailed Date: Jan. 30, 2022, 11 Pages. [cited by applicant]
“Notice of Allowance Issued in Chinese Patent Application No. 201880094684.2”, Mailed Date: Mar. 22, 2022, 6 Pages. [cited by applicant]
“Notice of Allowance Issued in European Patent Application No. 18924981.6”, Mailed Date: Mar. 16, 2023, 2 Pages. [cited by applicant]
“Office Action Issued in European Patent Application No. 19736536.4”, Mailed Date: Jul. 28, 2022, 7 Pages. [cited by applicant]
“Office Action Issued in Indian Patent Application No. 202017053909”, Mailed Date: Sep. 19, 2022, 6 Pages. [cited by applicant]
“Notice of Allowance Issued in European Patent Application No. 18924981.6”, Mailed Date: Dec. 2, 2022, 7 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Aditham, et al., “LSTM-Based Memory Profiling for Predicting Data Attacks in Distributed Big Data Systems”, In Proceedings of the IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium Workshops, May 29, 2017,… [cited by applicant]
Chen, et al., “Failure Prediction of Jobs in Compute Clouds: A Google Cluster Case Study”, In Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering Workshops, Nov. 3, 2014, pp. 341-346. [cited by applicant]
Fadishei, et al., “Job Failure Prediction in Grid Environment Based on Workload Characteristics”, In Proceedings of 14th International CSI Computer Conference, Oct. 20, 2009, pp. 329-334. [cited by applicant]
Hoffmann, et al., “Advanced Failure Prediction in Complex Software Systems”, Retrieved From http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.472.4905&rep=rep1&type=pdf, Apr. 2004, 19 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Islam, et al., “Predicting Application Failure in Cloud: A Machine Learning Approach”, In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Computing, Jun. 25, 2017, pp. 24-31. [cited by applicant]
Khan, et al., “Workload Characterization and Prediction in the Cloud: A Multiple Time Series Approach”, In Proceedings of the IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium, Apr. 16, 2012, pp. 1287-1294. [cited by applicant]
“Search Report Issued in European Patent Application No. 18924981.6”, Mailed Date: Dec. 21, 2021, 8 Pages. [cited by applicant]
“Amazon EBS features”, Retrieved From https://aws.amazon.com/ebs/features/, Oct. 2017, 12 Pages. [cited by applicant]
“Azure Disk Storage”, Retrieved From https://azure.microsoft.com/en-au/services/storage/disks/, Oct. 23, 2017, 20 Pages. [cited by applicant]
“Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 16/003,519”, Mailed Date: Mar. 5, 2020, 14 Pages. [cited by applicant]
“Non Final Office Action Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 16/003,519”, Mailed Date: Nov. 18, 2019, 14 Pages. [cited by applicant]
“Notice of Allowance Issued in U.S. Appl. No. 16/003,519”, Mailed Date: May 13, 2020, 6 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Ambros, et al., “Evaluating Defect Prediction Approaches: A Benchmark and an Extensive Comparison”, In Proceedings of the Empirical Software Engineering, Aug. 2012, pp. 531-577. [cited by applicant]
Ameller, et al., “A Survey on Quality Attributes in Service-based Systems”, In Proceedings of Software Quality Journal, vol. 24, Issue 2, Jun. 2016, pp. 271-299. [cited by applicant]
Botezatu, et al., “Predicting Disk Replacement towards Reliable Data Centers”, In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Aug. 13, 2016, pp. 39-48. [cited by applicant]
Burges, Christopherj. , “From Ranknet to Lambdarank to Lambdamart: An Overview”, In Microsoft Research Technical Report MSR-TR-2010-82, Jun. 23, 2010, 19 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Canfora, et al., “Defect Prediction as a Multi-Objective Optimization Problem”, In Software Testing, Verification and Reliability, vol. 25, Issue 4, Jun. 2015, pp. 426-459. [cited by applicant]
Chawla, et al., “SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-Sampling Technique”, In Journal of the Artificial Intelligence Research, vol. 16, Jun. 1, 2002, pp. 321-357. [cited by applicant]
Clark, et al., “Live Migration of Virtual Machines”, In Proceedings of 2nd Conference on Symposium on Networked Systems Design & Implementation, vol. 2., May 2, 2005, pp. 273-286. [cited by applicant]
Dinu, et al., “Understanding the Effects and Implications of Compute Node Related Failures in Hadoop”, In Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Computing, Jun. 2012… [cited by applicant]
Fenton, et al., “Quantitative Analysis of Faults and Failures in a Complex Software System”, In Proceedings of IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 26, Issue 8, Aug. 2000, pp. 797-814. [cited by applicant]
Ford, et al., “Availability in Globally Distributed Storage Systems”, In Proceedings of 9th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation, Oct. 4, 2010, 14 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Friedman, Jerome, “Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine”, In Journal of the Annals of Statistics, vol. 29, Issue 5, Oct. 2001, pp. 1189-1232. [cited by applicant]
Gaber, et al., “Predicting HDD Failures from Compound SMART Attributes”, In Proceedings of the 10th ACM International Systems and Storage Conference, May 22, 2017, 1 Page. [cited by applicant]
Gill, et al., “Understanding Network Failures in Data Centers: Measurement, Analysis, And Implications”, In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCOMM Conference, Aug. 15, 2011, pp. 350-361. [cited by applicant]
Gousios, et al., “Alitheia Core: An Extensible Software Quality Monitoring Platform”, In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering—Formal Research Demonstrations Track, May 2009, pp. 579-5… [cited by applicant]
Hall, et al., “A Systematic Literature Review on Fault Prediction Performance in Software Engineering”, In Journal of the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 38, Issue, 6, Nov. 2012, pp. 1276-1304. [cited by applicant]
Hochreiter, et al., “Long Short-term Memory”, In Journal of Neural Computation, vol. 9, Issue 8, Nov. 15, 1997, pp. 1735-1780. [cited by applicant]
Huang, et al., “Gray Failure: The Achilles' Heel of Cloud-Scale Systems”, In Proceedings of the 16th Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems, May 2017, pp. 150-155. [cited by applicant]
Jing, et al., “Heterogeneous Cross-Company Defect Prediction by Unified Metric Representation and CCA-Based Transfer Learning”, In Proceedings of the 10th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering, Aug. 2015,… [cited by applicant]
Kim, et al., “Dealing with Noise in Defect Prediction”, In Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2011, pp. 481-490. [cited by applicant]
Li, et al., “On Evaluating Commercial Cloud Services: A Systematic Review”, In Journal of Systems and Software, vol. 86, Issue 9, Sep. 2013, pp. 2371-2393. [cited by applicant]
Lin, et al., “Predicting Node Failure in Cloud Service Systems”, In Proceedings of the 26th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering, Nov. 20… [cited by applicant]
Liu, Tie-Yan, “Learning to Rank for Information Retrieval”, In Journal of the Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval, vol. 3, Issue 3, Mar. 2009, pp. 225-331. [cited by applicant]
Menzies, et al., “Data Mining Static Code Attributes to Learn Defect Predictors”, In Journal of the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 33, Issue 1, Jan. 2007, pp. 2-13. [cited by applicant]
Zhou, et al., “An Empirical Study on Quality Issues of Production Big Data Platform”, In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering—vol. 2, May 2015, pp. 17-26. [cited by applicant]
Mistrik, et al., Table of Contents, “Relating System Quality and Software Architecture”, In Proceedings of Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc, Jul. 2014, 10 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Nam, et al., “Heterogeneous Defect Prediction”, In Journal of the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 44, Issue 9, Jun. 2017, pp. 874-896. [cited by applicant]
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued In PCT Application No. PCT/CN18/093775”, Mailed Date: Mar. 27, 2019, 06 Pages. [cited by applicant]
“International Search Report and Written Opinion Issued in PCT Application No. PCT/US2019/034769”, Mailed Date: Jul. 30, 2019, 14 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Pinheiro, et al., “Failure Trends in a Large Disk Drive Population”, In Proceedings of the 5th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies, Feb. 13, 2007, pp. 17-29. [cited by applicant]
Pitakrat, et al., “A Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms for Proactive Hard Disk Drive Failure Detection”, In Proceedings of the 4th International ACM Sigsoft Symposium on Architecting Critical Systems, Jun. 17, 2… [cited by applicant]
Ryu, et al., “Value-Cognitive Boosting with a Support Vector Machine for Cross-Project Defect Prediction”, In Proceedings of Empirical Software Engineering, vol. 21, Issue 1, Feb. 2016, pp. 43-71. [cited by applicant]
Steen, et al., “microsoftml.rx_fast_trees: Boosted Trees”, Retrieved From https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/machine-learning-server/python-reference/microsoftml/rx-fast-trees, Jul. 15, 2019, 11 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Sutskever, et al., “Sequence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networks”, In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Dec. 8, 2014, 9 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Syer, et al., “Replicating and Re-evaluating the Theory of Relative Defect-Proneness”, In Proceedings of Transactions on Software Engineering vol. 41, Issue 2, Feb. 2015, 23 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Tantithamthavorn, et al., “Automated Parameter Optimization of Classification Techniques for Defect Prediction Models”, In Proceeding of IEEE/ACM 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2016, pp. 321-… [cited by applicant]
Tantithamthavorn, et al., “Comments on Researcher Bias: The Use of Machine Learning in Software Defect Prediction”, In Journal of the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 42, Issue 11, Nov. 1, 2016, pp. 1092-… [cited by applicant]
Tiley, et al., Table of Contents, “Software Testing in the Cloud: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline”. In IGI Global, Jan. 2012, 8 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Turhan, et al., “On the Relative Value of Cross-Company and Within-Company Data for Defect Prediction”, In Proceedings of Empirical Software Engineering, Oct. 2009, 34 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Vishwanath, et al., “Characterizing Cloud Computing Hardware Reliability”, In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, Jun. 10, 2010, pp. 193-203. [cited by applicant]
Wang, et al., “Automatically Learning Semantic Features for Defect Prediction”, In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering, May 2016, pp. 297-308. [cited by applicant]
Xu, et al., “Smart Ring: A Model of Node Failure Detection in High Available Cloud Data Center”, In Proceedings of 9th IFIP International Conference on Network and Parallel Computing, Sep. 6, 2012, pp. 279-288. [cited by applicant]
Yang, et al., “A Learning-to-Rank Approach to Software Defect Prediction”, In Journal of the IEEE Transactions on Reliability, vol. 64, Issue 1, Mar. 2015, pp. 234-246. [cited by applicant]
Yang, et al., “Deep Learning for Just-in-Time Defect Prediction”, In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security, Aug. 2015, pp. 17-26. [cited by applicant]
Zhang, Hongyu, “An Investigation of the Relationships between Lines of Code and Defects”, In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance, Sep. 2009, pp. 274-283. [cited by applicant]
Zhang, et al., “Failure Prediction in IBM BlueGene/L event logs”, In Proceedings of 22nd IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing, Apr. 14, 2008, 5 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Tan, et al. “Online Defect Prediction for Imbalanced Data”, In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Software Engineering, vol. 2, May 16, 2015, pp. 99-108. [cited by applicant]
Zhang, Hongyou, “On the Distribution of Software Faults”, In Journal of the IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, vol. 34, Issue 2, Mar. 2008, pp. 301-302. [cited by applicant]
Zhang, et al., “Towards Building a Universal Defect Prediction Model with Rank Transformed Predictors”, In Journal of the Empirical Software Engineering vol. 21, Issue 5, Oct. 2016, 39 Pages. [cited by applicant]
Communication 94(3) Received for European Application No. 19736536.4, mailed on Apr. 26, 2024, 8 pages. [cited by applicant]
Lee, et al., “Interpretable Categorization of Heterogeneous Time Series Data”, Arxiv.Org, Cornell University Library, 2017, 9 pages. [cited by applicant]
Nakata, et al., “A modified XCS classifier system for sequence labeling”, Proceedings of the 40th Annual Design Automation Conference, 2014, pp. 565-572. [cited by applicant]
Zheng, et al., “Capturing Feature-Level Irregularity in Disease Progression Modeling”, Proceedings of the ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2017, 10 pages. [cited by applicant]