Deep Learning for System Trace Restoration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most real-world datasets, and particularly those collected from physical systems, are full of noise, packet loss, and other imperfections. However, most specification mining, anomaly detection and other such algorithms assume, or even require, perfect data quality to function properly. Such algorithms may work in lab conditions when given clean, controlled data, but will fail in the field when given imperfect data. We propose a method for accurately reconstructing discrete temporal or sequential system traces affected by data loss, using Long Short-Term Memory Networks (LSTMs). The model works by learning to predict the next event in a sequence of events, and uses its own output as an input to continue predicting future events. As a result, this method can be used for data restoration even with streamed data. Such a method can reconstruct even long sequence of missing events, and can also help validate and improve data quality for noisy data. The output of the model will be a close reconstruction of the true data, and can be fed to algorithms that rely on clean data. We demonstrate our method by reconstructing automotive CAN traces consisting of long sequences of discrete events. We show that given even small parts of a CAN trace, our LSTM model can predict future events with an accuracy of almost 90%, and can successfully reconstruct large portions of the original trace, greatly outperforming a Markov Model benchmark. We separately feed the original, lossy, and reconstructed traces into a specification mining framework to perform downstream analysis of the effect of our method on state-of-the-art models that use these traces for understanding the behavior of complex systems.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".