On the Effectiveness of Log Representation for Log-based Anomaly Detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Logs are an essential source of information for people to understand the running status of a software system. Due to the evolving modern software architecture and maintenance methods, more research efforts have been devoted to automated log analysis. In particular, machine learning (ML) has been widely used in log analysis tasks. In ML-based log analysis tasks, converting textual log data into numerical feature vectors is a critical and indispensable step. However, the impact of using different log representation techniques on the performance of the downstream models is not clear, which limits researchers and practitioners' opportunities of choosing the optimal log representation techniques in their automated log analysis workflows. Therefore, this work investigates and compares the commonly adopted log representation techniques from previous log analysis research. Particularly, we select six log representation techniques and evaluate them with seven ML models and four public log datasets (i.e., HDFS, BGL, Spirit and Thunderbird) in the context of log-based anomaly detection. We also examine the impacts of the log parsing process and the different feature aggregation approaches when they are employed with log representation techniques. From the experiments, we provide some heuristic guidelines for future researchers and developers to follow when designing an automated log analysis workflow. We believe our comprehensive comparison of log representation techniques can help researchers and practitioners better understand the characteristics of different log representation techniques and provide them with guidance for selecting the most suitable ones for their ML-based log analysis workflow.
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 | 0.017 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".