Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2602.06709

Using Large Language Models to Support Automation of Failure Management in CI/CD Pipelines: A Case Study in SAP HANA

Abstract

CI/CD pipeline failure management is time-consuming when performed manually. Automating this process is non-trivial because the information required for effective failure management is unstructured and cannot be automatically processed by traditional programs. With their ability to process unstructured data, large language models (LLMs) have shown promising results for automated failure management by previous work. Following these studies, we evaluated whether an LLM-based system could automate failure management in a CI/CD pipeline in the context of a large industrial software project, namely SAP HANA. We evaluated the ability of the LLM-based system to identify the error location and to propose exact solutions that contain no unnecessary actions. To support the LLM in generating exact solutions, we provided it with different types of domain knowledge, including pipeline information, failure management instructions, and data from historical failures. We conducted an ablation study to determine which type of domain knowledge contributed most to solution accuracy. The results show that data from historical failures contributed the most to the system's accuracy, enabling it to produce exact solutions in 92.1% of cases in our dataset. The system correctly identified the error location with 97.4% accuracy when provided with domain knowledge, compared to 84.2% accuracy without it. In conclusion, our findings indicate that LLMs, when provided with data from historical failures, represent a promising approach for automating CI/CD pipeline failure management.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Duong Bui, Stefan Grintz, Alexander Berndt, Thomas Bach. 2026-02-06. Using Large Language Models to Support Automation of Failure Management in CI/CD Pipelines: A Case Study in SAP HANA. https://doi.org/10.1109/saner67736.2026.00063

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