Fault Data Analytics Using Decision Tree for Fault Detection

  • Ha Manh TranEmail author
  • Sinh Van Nguyen
  • Son Thanh Le
  • Quy Tran Vu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9446)


Monitoring events on communication and computing systems becomes more and more challenging due to the increasing complexity and diversity of these systems. Several supporting tools have been created to assist system administrators in monitoring an enormous number of events daily. The main function of these tools is to filter as many as possible events and present non-trivial events to the administrators for fault analysis and detection. However, non-trivial events never decrease on large systems, such as cloud computing systems, while investigating events is time consuming. This paper proposes an approach for evaluating the severity level of an event using a classification and regression decision tree. The approach aims to build a decision tree based on the features of old events, then use this tree to decide the severity level of new events. The administrators take advantages of this decision to determine proper actions for the non-trivial events. We have implemented and experimented the approach for software bug datasets obtained from bug tracking systems. The experimental results reveal that the accuracy scores for different decision trees are above 70 % and some detailed analyses are provided.


Event monitoring Fault data analytics Fault detection CART decision tree Software bug report 



This research activity is funded by Vietnam National University in Ho Chi Minh City (VNU-HCM) under the grant number C2015-28-02


  1. 1.
    Buyya, R., Yeo, C.S., Venugopal, S., Broberg, J., Brandic, I.: Cloud computing and emerging it platforms: vision, hype, and reality for delivering computing as the 5th utility. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 25(6), 599–616 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Armbrust, M., Fox, A., Griffith, R., Joseph, A.D., Katz, R., Konwinski, A., Lee, G., Patterson, D., Rabkin, A., Stoica, I., Zaharia, M.: A view of cloud computing. ACM Commun. 53(4), 50–58 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breiman, L., Friedman, J.H., Olshen, R.A., Stone, C.J.: Classification and Regression Trees. Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York (1984)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tran, H.M., Schönwälder, J.: Fault representation in case-based reasoning. In: Clemm, A., Granville, L.Z., Stadler, R. (eds.) DSOM 2007. LNCS, vol. 4785, pp. 50–61. Springer, Heidelberg (2007) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Tran, H.M., Le, S.T., Ha, S.V.U., Huynh, T.K.: Software bug ontology supporting bug search on peer-to-peer networks. In: Proceeding 6th International KES Conference on Agents and Multi-agent Systems Technologies and Applications (AMSTA 2013). IOS Press (2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sinnamon, R.M., Andrews, J.D.: Fault tree analysis and binary decision diagrams. In: Proceeding in Reliability and Maintainability Annual Symposium, pp. 215–222 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Reay, K.A., Andrews, J.D.: A fault tree analysis strategy using binary decision diagrams. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 78(1), 45–56 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Francis, P., Leon, D., Minch, M., Podgurski, A.: Tree-based methods for classifying software failures. In: Proceedings of 15th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE 2004), pp. 451–462. IEEE, Washington (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zheng, A.X., Lloyd, J., Brewer, E.: Failure diagnosis using decision trees. In: Proceeding of 1st International Conference on Autonomic Computing (ICAC 2004), pp. 36–43. IEEE Computer Society, Washington (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Quinlan, J.R.: Induction of decision trees. Mach. Learn. 1(1), 81–106 (1986)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Quinlan, J.R.: C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Francisco (1993) Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kass, G.V.: An exploratory technique for investigating large quantities of categorical data. Appl. Stat. 29(2), 119–127 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mozilla Bug Tracking System. Accessed Jan 2015
  14. 14.
    Launchpad Bugs. Accessed Jan 2015
  15. 15.
    Mantis Bug Tracker. Accessed Jan 2015
  16. 16.
    Debian Bug Tracking System. Accessed Jan 2015
  17. 17.
    Tran, H.M., Lange, C., Chulkov, G., Schönwälder, J., Kohlhase, M.: Applying semantic techniques to search and analyze bug tracking data. J. Netw. Syst. Manag. 17(3), 285–308 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., Duchesnay, E.: Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 12, 2825–2830 (2011)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Oliphant, T.: A guide to NumPy, vol. 1. Trelgol Publishing, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Silva, F.B.: Learning SciPy for Numerical and Scientific Computing. Packt Publishing, Birmingham (2013) Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hall, L.O., Chawla, N., Bowyer, K.W.: Decision tree learning on very large data sets. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, vol. 3, pp. 2579–2584. IEEE (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ha Manh Tran
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sinh Van Nguyen
    • 1
  • Son Thanh Le
    • 1
  • Quy Tran Vu
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science and EngineeringInternational University - Vietnam National UniversityHo Chi Minh CityVietnam

Personalised recommendations