Mining unstructured log files for recurrent fault diagnosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Enterprise software systems are large and complex with limited support for automated root-cause analysis. Avoiding system downtime and loss of revenue dictates a fast and efficient root-cause analysis process. Operator practice and academic research have shown that about 80% of failures in such systems have recurrent causes; therefore, significant efficiency gains can be achieved by automating their identification. In this paper, we present a novel approach to modelling features of log files. This model offers a compact representation of log data that can be efficiently extracted from large amounts of monitoring data. We also use decision-tree classifiers to learn and classify symptoms of recurrent faults. This representation enables automated fault matching and, in addition, enables human investigators to understand manifestations of failure easily. Our model does not require any access to application source code, a specification of log messages, or deep application knowledge. We evaluate our proposal using fault-injection experiments against other proposals in the field. First, we show that the features needed for symptom definition can be extracted more efficiently than does related work. Second, we show that these features enable an accurate classification of recurrent faults using only standard machine learning techniques. This enables us to identify accurately up to 78% of the faults in our evaluation data set.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".