Clustering event logs using iterative partitioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of event logs, as a source of information in systems and network management cannot be overemphasized. With the ever increasing size and complexity of today's event logs, the task of analyzing event logs has become cumbersome to carry out manually. For this reason recent research has focused on the automatic analysis of these log files. In this paper we present IPLoM (Iterative Partitioning Log Mining), a novel algorithm for the mining of clusters from event logs. Through a 3-Step hierarchical partitioning process IPLoM partitions log data into its respective clusters. In its 4th and final stage IPLoM produces cluster descriptions or line formats for each of the clusters produced. Unlike other similar algorithms IPLoM is not based on the Apriori algorithm and it is able to find clusters in data whether or not its instances appear frequently. Evaluations show that IPLoM outperforms the other algorithms statistically significantly, and it is also able to achieve an average F-Measure performance 78% when the closest other algorithm achieves an F-Measure performance of 10%.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".