Event Forensics–Inspired Automated Recovery Strategies for Enterprise-Scale Distributed Services Employing Generative Artificial Intelligence
Abstract
The increasing complexity of enterprise-scale distributed services has intensified the challenge of maintaining service availability, reliability, and operational resilience. Modern cloud-native architectures comprise interconnected microservices, containerized workloads, orchestration platforms, and heterogeneous infrastructure components that collectively generate vast quantities of operational telemetry. Traditional incident response mechanisms frequently rely on manual diagnostics, predefined rules, and reactive recovery procedures, resulting in extended downtime and operational inefficiencies. Recent advancements in Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), particularly large language models (LLMs), provide new opportunities for transforming incident management into intelligent, adaptive, and self-improving recovery ecosystems.
This research proposes an event forensics–inspired automated recovery framework for enterprise-scale distributed services that integrates forensic event analysis, contextual knowledge extraction, causal reasoning, and generative decision support. The proposed framework utilizes operational artifacts generated during failures, including logs, traces, metrics, alerts, and configuration histories, to construct structured forensic intelligence. This intelligence is subsequently analyzed through generative models to identify probable root causes, recommend corrective actions, and orchestrate automated recovery workflows. Unlike conventional monitoring systems that emphasize anomaly detection alone, the proposed approach leverages historical incident knowledge and contextual reasoning to create adaptive recovery mechanisms capable of learning from previous disruptions.
The study develops a conceptual architecture composed of event acquisition, forensic correlation, knowledge representation, generative reasoning, and automated remediation layers. Drawing upon principles of human-like decision making, cognitive modeling, risk-based adaptation, and behavioral learning from the literature, the framework introduces a novel perspective in which distributed systems emulate expert operational reasoning during incident response. The findings suggest that event forensics combined with generative intelligence can significantly reduce mean time to detection (MTTD), mean time to resolution (MTTR), and operational uncertainty while improving service resilience.
The paper contributes a comprehensive theoretical and methodological foundation for integrating forensic analytics and generative AI into enterprise recovery systems. The proposed framework demonstrates how organizations can transition from reactive operational management toward autonomous resilience capable of continuous adaptation in dynamic cloud-native environments.
Keywords
Event Forensics, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Large Language Models, Automated Recovery
References
- M. Da Lio, A. Mazzalai, K. Gurney, and A. Saroldi, “Biologically guided driver modeling: The stop behavior of human car drivers,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 19, no. 8, pp. 2454–2469, Aug. 2018.
- Y. Chen, G. Li, S. Li, W. Wang, S. E. Li, and B. Cheng, “Exploring behavioral patterns of lane change maneuvers for human-like autonomous driving,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 14322–14335, Sep. 2022.
- S. Xie, S. Chen, J. Zheng, M. Tomizuka, N. Zheng, and J. Wang, “From human driving to automated driving: What do we know about drivers? ” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 6189–6205, Jul. 2022.
- G. Gigerenzer and W. Gaissmaier, “Heuristic decision making,” Annu. Rev. Psychol., vol. 62, pp. 451–482, Mar. 2011.
- T. Gu, J. M. Dolan, and J.-W. Lee, “Human-like planning of swerve maneuvers for autonomous vehicles,” in Proc. IEEE Intell. Vehicles Symp. (IV), Jun. 2016, pp. 716–721.
- P. Hang, C. Lv, Y. Xing, C. Huang, and Z. Hu, “Human-like decision making for autonomous driving: A noncooperative game theoretic approach,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2076–2087, Apr. 2021.
- S. Hecker, D. Dai, A. Liniger, M. Hahner, and L. Van Gool, “Learning accurate and human-like driving using semantic maps and attention,” in Proc. IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. Intell. Robots Syst. (IROS), Oct. 2020, pp. 2346–2353.
- R. G. Hoogendoorn, G. Tamminga, S. P. Hoogendoorn, and W. Daamen, “Longitudinal driving behavior under adverse weather conditions: Adaptation effects, model performance and freeway capacity in case of fog,” in Proc. 13th Int. IEEE Conf. Intell. Transp. Syst., Sep. 2010, pp. 450–455.
- S. Kolekar, J. de Winter, and D. Abbink, “Human-like driving behaviour emerges from a risk-based driver model,” Nature Commun., vol. 11, no. 1, p. 4850, Sep. 2020.
- S. Liu, J. Wang, and T. Fu, “Effects of lane width, lane position and edge shoulder width on driving behavior in underground urban expressways: A driving simulator study,” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, vol. 13, no. 10, p. 1010, Oct. 2016.
- R. Nagel, “Unraveling in guessing games: An experimental study,” Amer. Econ. Rev., vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 1313–1326, 1995.
- Post-Mortem Intelligence for Self-Healing Multi-Cloud Enterprise Applications Using LLMs and Kubernetes. (2026). International Journal of Research and Applied Innovations, 9(1), 13641-13649. https://doi.org/10.15662/IJRAI.2026.0901017
- F. Rosey, I. Aillerie, S. Espié, and F. Vienne, “Driver behaviour in fog is not only a question of degraded visibility—A simulator study,” Saf. Sci., vol. 95, pp. 50–61, Jun. 2017.
- D. D. Salvucci, “Modeling driver behavior in a cognitive architecture,” Hum. Factors, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 362–380, Jun. 2006.
- K. Sama, Y. Morales, H. Liu, N. Akai, A. Carballo, E. Takeuchi, and K. Takeda, “Extracting human-like driving behaviors from expert driver data using deep learning,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 69, no. 9, pp. 9315–9329, Sep. 2020.
- Y. Shao, J. Xu, B. Li, and K. Yang, “Modeling the speed choice behaviors of drivers on mountainous roads with complicated shapes,” Adv. Mech. Eng., vol. 7, no. 2, Jan. 2015, Art. no. 862610.
- A. Taragin and L. Leisch, “Driver performance on horizontal curves,” in Proc. Highway Res. Board, vol. 33, 1954, pp. 446–466.
- R. Fuller, “Towards a general theory of driver behaviour,” Accident Anal. Prevention, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 461–472, May 2005.
- J. A. Villacorta-Atienza, “Static internal representation of dynamic situations reveals time compaction in human cognition,” J. Adv. Res., vol. 28, pp. 111–125, Feb. 2021.
- Y. Wiseman and I. Grinberg, “Circumspectly crash of autonomous vehicles,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Electro Inf. Technol. (EIT), May 2016, pp. 387–392.
- C. Wu and Y. Liu, “Queuing network modeling of the psychological refractory period (PRP),” Psychol. Rev., vol. 115, no. 4, pp. 913–954, 2008.
- D. Xu, “Learning from naturalistic driving data for human-like autonomous highway driving,” IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 22, no. 12, pp. 7341–7354, Dec. 2021.
- S. Xie, J. Zheng, and J. Wang, “Cognition-inspired behavioural feature identification and motion planning ways for human-like automated driving vehicles,” IET Intell. Transp. Syst., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 754–766, Apr. 2023.