Actual causality in fault trees

Can a learned model capture how faults propagate through a large-scale network and use this knowledge to causally attribute customer impact to its underlying root cause? Existing root cause analysis techniques often rely on static rules, correlation heuristics, or topology-local reasoning, which struggle to generalize in dynamic environments where faults propagate across complex physical and logical dependencies. We present NetCause, a self-supervised learning-based framework that models network incidents as graph-temporal processes and uses counterfactual simulation to rank candidate root causes. This approach produces an interpretable ranking of root cause hypotheses and integrates naturally with operator-defined mitigation and remediation actions. We train the model on over 1,500 incidents collected over six months from a leading cloud provider's production network and evaluate it on 31 expert-labeled incidents. NetCause consistently improves root cause ranking quality in the regime most relevant to operational decision-making, achieving a 16.1% accuracy improvement over a rule-based heuristic baseline. While training is computationally intensive, inference is lightweight, requiring only seconds of GPU runtime per incident (well below typical telemetry collection latencies).

Modern telecommunication, cloud, and microservice systems emit correlated alarm cascades when components fail. Root cause analysis (RCA) aims to identify the small set of alarms that initiate each cascade. A common approach learns a causal graph from observational logs and predicts all zero-in-degree alarms in each incident-induced subgraph. However, the learned graph remains fixed and cannot benefit from expert diagnoses of historical incidents. We close this loop with EvoCause. Expert labels constrain which alarms should be source nodes but do not specify the edge edits needed to satisfy those constraints. EvoCause uses a large language model (LLM) to propose semantically plausible graph edits, while deterministic code validates node identities and acyclicity and retains the best graph on a labeled alignment set. At test time, the refined graph alone produces transparent predictions without an LLM call. We also release TeleRCA, an expert-annotated benchmark from a production telecommunication network containing $485{,}681$ alarm events spanning $194$ alarm types over $5{,}621$ resources. On synthetic data, EvoCause initialized with the PC causal discovery algorithm outperforms the unrefined PC baseline, raising Node F1, Case EM, and Graph F1 by $11.59$, $9.40$, and $4.59$ percentage points, respectively, while reducing nSHD by $0.2379$. On TeleRCA, replacing human-readable alarm titles with anonymous identifiers lowers Node F1 and Case EM by $6.12$ and $8.04$ percentage points, respectively, indicating that alarm-name information contributes to graph refinement.

Large language models can produce fluent root cause analyses, but fluent final answers alone are insufficient evidence for accountability in high-stakes operations. In real incident response, engineers need to know what evidence supported a diagnosis, which alternatives were considered, where contradictions remained, and whether the system resolved the case or preserved uncertainty. We address this gap with JustDiag, a diagnostic justification engine for RCA that maintains an explicit process state over evidence, findings, competing hypotheses, conflicts, and next checks. We evaluated the system on 66 real-world incidents using a two-layer protocol that separately scores final-answer quality and process quality. Relative to a matched control without diagnostic justification, JustDiag achieved stronger outcome and process scores, while accepting slightly lower terminal completion due to more calibrated non-closure. These results suggest that accountable RCA requires explicit diagnostic justification artifacts and process-aware evaluation, not only fluent final answers.