System Failure Detection Using Deep Learning Models Integrating Timestamps With Nonuniform Intervals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
System logs play an important role in software development and system maintenance. Many system software programs continuously generate system logs during software runtimes for failure detection and diagnosis purposes. Currently, the analysis of system log data is mainly a manual process that highly depends on human knowledge and experience. This time-consuming task has become a problem because of the ever-increasing volume of log data. Existing studies have investigated machine learning and deep learning techniques to automate the failure detection task. This paper takes the deep learning approach and proposes two detection structures based on recurrent and convolutional neural networks. More importantly, this paper takes a step further by closely examining the timestamps of log data which existing studies have generally ignored. This study found that time information can be a distinguishing factor between regular and abnormal log sequences. Inspired by this observation, a novel method is proposed to integrate log timestamps in deep learning models using interpolation techniques. The evaluation results show that the log timestamps can significantly improve the performance of failure detection. Cross-comparison of the different models demonstrates that the proposed network structure can successfully utilize the timestamp information. The code is available on GitHub:https://github.com/hfyxin/Ts-models-log-data-analysis.git.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".