arXiv subjects

Rohit Patel

Publications and source records attributed to Rohit Patel.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

TriFleetRCA: On-Premise LLM Root Cause Analysis for Kubernetes

Root cause analysis at a remote site is slow: evidence is scattered across pod logs, Kubernetes events and cluster-level objects, and many operators cannot send production logs to a hosted model at all. On-premise inference removes the second constraint but raises a question live-cluster benchmarks have not addressed: when one workstation GPU fixes both the model and the context budget, how should evidence be retrieved, and what happens when the runbooks the model consults have been tampered with? We present TriFleetRCA, a pipeline running entirely on one on-premise GPU that collects evidence at one of three scopes (pod, namespace, cluster), ranks it by template de-duplication then BM25, filters runbooks through an ingest guard, and returns a root cause with the evidence lines supporting it. We evaluate on a live Kubernetes cluster into which we inject four faults, so ground truth is known by construction, across 100 analyses with Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct at temperature 0. The hit rate was 0.85, 0.90 and 0.95 at pod, namespace and cluster scope; intervals overlap, but the whole scope effect comes from the one fault whose cause is a cluster-level object, and cluster scope costs 55% more tokens. De-duplication before ranking raised the hit rate from 0.75 to 0.90 at equal token cost. A poisoned runbook telling the model to delete the namespace was rejected by the guard every run; with the guard disabled the model declined to follow it in all 20 analyses, making the guard defence in depth rather than the sole barrier. Separating citation quality from accuracy proved informative: one fault was diagnosed correctly and cited incorrectly every trial, a failure mode accuracy conceals. Median latency was 1.6 s at 2,200 prompt tokens. We release the pipeline, the fault injector and all records.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

TriCalRAG: A Three-Strategy, Retrieval-Augmented Benchmark for On-Premise LLM-Based Root Cause Analysis in AIOps

Cloud-hosted large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for root cause analysis (RCA) in AIOps pipelines, but they introduce data privacy risk, network latency, and per-query cost that scale poorly with production log volumes. We present TriCalRAG, a benchmark evaluating open-weight LLMs served locally via vLLM on a single high-memory workstation GPU (NVIDIA RTX PRO 6000, 96GB) against a classical LSTM-based log anomaly detector (DeepLog), across four real, publicly available log datasets (BGL, HDFS, Thunderbird, OpenStack). We evaluate two open-weight models (Qwen2.5-14B, Mistral-Small) under three prompting strategies: zero-shot, few-shot, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) over a labeled incident history, reporting accuracy, precision/recall, and F1 with bootstrap 95% confidence intervals across 3 random seeds, alongside throughput and VRAM footprint. Our results show that RAG not only improves mean F1 by 0.10-0.27 over zero-shot prompting but, more importantly, substantially stabilizes model calibration: zero-shot prompting drives both models toward near-degenerate behavior (predicting "anomaly" on up to 100% of incidents on some datasets), while RAG keeps predicted-positive rates close to the true class balance in the majority of configurations. Mistral-Small achieves higher macro-averaged F1 than Qwen2.5-14B (0.644 vs. 0.560) but exhibits calibration failures in more configurations (7 vs. 5 of 12), while running at roughly half the throughput - indicating the better model choice depends on whether a deployment prioritizes peak accuracy or predictable behavior across prompting conditions. Ablations show batching scales throughput 41 times on a single card and that 4-bit quantization reduces latency 20% with no measurable accuracy loss. We release our benchmark harness, dataset splits, and evaluation code to support reproducible on-premise AIOps research.

cs.DC↗

arXiv2026

TriShieldRAG: 3 Rings, One Blind Spot in Layered Defenses for Retrieval-Augmented Generation

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds LLM answers in query-time retrieved documents, so reliability depends on what the retriever returns. PoisonedRAG (Zou et al., USENIX Security'25) showed five crafted documents mislead an undefended system in nearly 90% of cases, and that single-stage defenses give limited robustness. We propose TriShieldRAG, a three-layered framework: an Ingest Guard for document-level screening, a Retrieval Scorer for trust-aware re-ranking, and a Cross-LLM Consensus over three diverse models. We reasoned that collectively screening, re-ranking and validating retrieved evidence would give complementary protection, limiting the ability of poisoned documents to succeed through any single failure. We evaluate against non-adaptive and adaptive poisoning. Non-adaptively, on the full 2.68M-passage Natural Questions (NQ) corpus with the original PoisonedRAG attack, it cuts attack success from 79 +/- 1.0% to 1 +/- 0.0%. Adaptive attacks expose fundamental limits of layering. By changing only the document formatting, without modifying the poison text or accessing the retriever, the attacker reduces the Ingest Guard score from 0.500 to 0.000 and bypasses it on all 500 tested documents across three corpora. The remaining layers then give no protection: 62 +/- 0.8% attack success against a 56 +/- 2.5% undefended baseline on NQ, and 85 +/- 0.6% against 86 +/- 0.6% on HotpotQA. Layered defenses relying on the same retrieved evidence fail together: poisoned context misleads both re-ranking and consensus validation. Minority-poison thresholds prove corpus-dependent, at 0.214, 0.251 and 0.558 rather than the derived 0.5; a closed form we proposed for these failed a pre-registered prediction and is retracted. Cross-model agreement is misleading, reaching 0.96 while attack success approaches 99%. We release the framework, the evasion-certification methodology and artifacts.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2026

Modality Maturity Index: A benchmark for assessing multimodal capabilities of omni models

Frontier language models are increasingly marketed as omni systems that can perceive and respond across modalities. Existing evaluation frameworks, however, focus almost exclusively on bimodal understanding, typically text plus one other modality. We propose the Modality Maturity Index (MMI), a benchmark designed to evaluate the multimodal capabilities of large language models across five modalities (text, image, audio, video and document) and combinations of up to three modalities in both inputs and outputs. MMI consists of 893 questions, each carefully crafted to require the model to demonstrate its understanding of multiple input modalities and to generate responses that incorporate various output formats. The questions are designed to be self-contained, with clear expectations for the correct modality or mix of modalities required for an accurate response. Every MMI prompt carries human-authored rubric criteria for each output modality expected in the response; a model's MMI Value expresses the average of the per-modality scores for each prompt. Because low scores can reflect either failure to generate a modality (lack of presence) or failure to generate correct content, we introduce also a supplementary Modality Presence Score (MPS), a per-prompt F1 over the expected output modalities. Applying MMI to five frontier multimodal models, we find that the MPS ranges from only 15.6 (Claude Opus 4.6) to 34.9 (GPT-5.4). Given the low availability of returned modalities to even grade, we report MPS as our main result pending model improvements. To assess the viability of judging output correctness with LLM judges and rubrics, we run a separate experiment with custom generation tools. On the assets that generates, we find that an LLM judge applying the rubrics agrees with rubric-blind human annotators (who score the outputs directly and never see the criteria) on 70.8% of judgments.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2026

GIM: Evaluating models via tasks that integrate multiple cognitive domains

As LLM benchmarks saturate, the evaluation community has pursued two strategies to increase difficulty: escalating knowledge demands (GPQA, HLE) or removing knowledge entirely in favor of abstract reasoning (ARC-AGI). The first conflates memorization with capability; the second divorces reasoning from the practical contexts in which it matters. We take a different approach. The Grounded Integration Measure (GIM) is a benchmark of 820 original problems (615 public, 205 private) where difficulty comes from integration; individual problems require coordinating multiple cognitive operations (constraint satisfaction, state tracking, epistemic vigilance, audience calibration) over broadly accessible knowledge, so that reasoning stays grounded in realistic tasks without being gated on specialized expertise. Each problem is an original expert-authored composition, majority with rubric-decomposed scoring. We calibrate a judge-aware continuous response 2-parameter logistic (2PL) IRT model across 53 test-configurations (unique model x thinking-level pairs) and five calibrated judges, using 203,800 epoch-averaged prompt-judge cells derived from >1M raw judge-scored observations, producing robust ability estimates that correctly order test-configurations even when raw accuracy is distorted by errors, missing data, or judge leniency differences. Using this framework, we present a comprehensive leaderboard spanning 22 models and 47 reporting test-configurations, and conduct what is to our knowledge the most extensive published study of how test-time compute trades off against model capability on a fixed benchmark: 11 models swept across 35 test-configurations. We observe that within-family configuration choices, such as thinking budget and quantization, matter as much as model selection, and increasing thinking tokens has diminishing marginal returns.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

WearVQA: A Visual Question Answering Benchmark for Wearables in Egocentric Authentic Real-world scenarios

We introduce WearVQA, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the Visual Question Answering (VQA) capabilities of multi-model AI assistant on wearable devices like smart glasses. Unlike prior benchmarks that focus on high-quality, third-person imagery, WearVQA reflects the unique challenges of ego-centric interaction-where visual inputs may be occluded, poorly lit, unzoomed, or blurry, and questions are grounded in realistic wearable use cases. The benchmark comprises 2,520 carefully curated image-question-answer triplets, spanning 7 diverse image domains including both text-centric and general scenes, 10 cognitive task types ranging from basic recognition to various forms of reasoning, and 6 common wearables-specific image quality issues. All questions are designed to be answerable using only the visual input and common senses. WearVQA is paired with a rigorous LLM-as-a-judge evaluation framework with 96% labeling accuracy. Open-source and proprietary multi-model LLMs achieved a QA accuracy as low as 24-52% on WearVQA, with substantial drops on lower-quality images and reasoning-heavy tasks. These observations position WearVQA as a comprehensive and challenging benchmark for guiding technical advancement towards robust, real-world multi-model wearables AI systems.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

CRAG-MM: Multi-modal Multi-turn Comprehensive RAG Benchmark

Wearable devices such as smart glasses are transforming the way people interact with their surroundings, enabling users to seek information regarding entities in their view. Multi-Modal Retrieval-Augmented Generation (MM-RAG) plays a key role in supporting such questions, yet there is still no comprehensive benchmark for this task, especially regarding wearables scenarios. To fill this gap, we present CRAG-MM -- a Comprehensive RAG benchmark for Multi-modal Multi-turn conversations. CRAG-MM contains a diverse set of 6.5K (image, question, answer) triplets and 2K visual-based multi-turn conversations across 13 domains, including 6.2K egocentric images designed to mimic captures from wearable devices. We carefully constructed the questions to reflect real-world scenarios and challenges, including five types of image-quality issues, six question types, varying entity popularity, differing information dynamism, and different conversation turns. We design three tasks: single-source augmentation, multi-source augmentation, and multi-turn conversations -- each paired with an associated retrieval corpus and APIs for both image-KG retrieval and webpage retrieval. Our evaluation shows that straightforward RAG approaches achieve only 32% and 43% truthfulness on CRAG-MM single- and multi-turn QA, respectively, whereas state-of-the-art industry solutions have similar quality (32%/45%), underscoring ample room for improvement. The benchmark has hosted KDD Cup 2025, attracting about 1K participants and 5K submissions, with winning solutions improving baseline performance by 28%, highlighting its early impact on advancing the field.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

Understanding Reinforcement Learning for Model Training, and future directions with GRAPE

This paper provides a self-contained, from-scratch, exposition of key algorithms for instruction tuning of models: SFT, Rejection Sampling, REINFORCE, Trust Region Policy Optimization (TRPO), Proximal Policy Optimization (PPO), Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Explanations of these algorithms often assume prior knowledge, lack critical details, and/or are overly generalized and complex. Here, each method is discussed and developed step by step using simplified and explicit notation focused on LLMs, aiming to eliminate ambiguity and provide a clear and intuitive understanding of the concepts. By minimizing detours into the broader RL literature and connecting concepts to LLMs, we eliminate superfluous abstractions and reduce cognitive overhead. Following this exposition, we provide a literature review of new techniques and approaches beyond those detailed. Finally, new ideas for research and exploration in the form of GRAPE (Generalized Relative Advantage Policy Evolution) are presented.

cs.CL↗