LogSay: An Efficient Comprehension System for Log Numerical Reasoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the growth of smart systems and applications, high volume logs are generated that record important data for system maintenance. System developers are usually required to analyze logs to track the status of the system or applications. Therefore, it is essential to find the answers in large-scale logs when they have some questions. In this work, we design a multi-step“Retriever-Reader”question-answering system, namely LogSay, which aims at predicting answers accurately and efficiently. Our system can not only answers simple questions, such as a segment log or span, but also can answer complex logical questions through numerical reasoning. LogSay has two key components:Log RetrieverandLog Reasoner, and we designed five operators to implement them.Log Retrieveraims at retrieving some relevant logs based on a question. Then,Log Reasonerperforms numerical reasoning to infer the final answer. In addition, due to the lack of available question-answering datasets for system logs, we constructed question-answering datasets based on three public log datasets and will make them publicly available. Our evaluation results show that LogSay outperforms the state-of-the-art works in terms of accuracy and efficiency.
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.014 |
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".