LogParse: Making Log Parsing Adaptive through Word Classification
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Logs are one of the most valuable data sources for large-scale service (e.g., social network, search engine) maintenance. Log parsing serves as the the first step towards automated log analysis. However, the current log parsing methods are not adaptive. Without intra-service adaptiveness, log parsing cannot handle software/firmware upgrade because learned templates cannot match new type of logs. In addition, without cross-service adaptiveness, the logs of a new type of service cannot be accurately parsed when this service is newly deployed. We propose LogParse, an adaptive log parsing framework, to support intra-service and cross-service incremental template learning and update. LogParse turns the template generation problem into a word classification problem and learns the features of template words and variable words. We evaluate LogParse on four public production log datasets. The results demonstrate that LogParse supports accurate adaptive template update (increased from 0.559 to nearly 1.0 parsing accuracy), and a trained LogParse is adaptive for a brand new service’s log parsing. Because of LogParse’s adaptiveness, we also apply LogParse to an interesting application, log compression and deployed log compression in a top cloud service provider. We package LogParse into an open-source toolkit.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it