Systematic Evaluation of Deep Learning Models for Log-based Failure Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract With the increasing complexity and scope of software systems, their dependability is crucial. The analysis of log data recorded during system execution can enable engineers to automatically predict failures at run time. Several Machine Learning (ML) techniques, including traditional ML and Deep Learning (DL), have been proposed to automate such tasks. However, current empirical studies are limited in terms of covering all main DL types—Recurrent Neural Network (RNN), Convolutional Neural Network (CNN), and transformer—as well as examining them on a wide range of diverse datasets. In this paper, we aim to address these issues by systematically investigating the combination of log data embedding strategies and DL types for failure prediction. To that end, we propose a modular architecture to accommodate various configurations of embedding strategies and DL-based encoders. To further investigate how dataset characteristics such as dataset size and failure percentage affect model accuracy, we synthesised 360 datasets, with varying characteristics, for three distinct system behavioural models, based on a systematic and automated generation approach. Using the F1 score metric, our results show that the best overall performing configuration is a CNN-based encoder with Logkey2vec. Additionally, we provide specific dataset conditions, namely a dataset size $$>350$$ > 350 or a failure percentage $$>7.5\%$$ > 7.5 % , under which this configuration demonstrates high accuracy for failure prediction.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".