Preprocessing is All You Need: Boosting the Performance of Log Parsers with a General Preprocessing Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Log parsing has been a long-studied area in software engineering due to its importance in identifying dynamic vari-ables and constructing log templates. Prior work has proposed many statistic-based log parsers (e.g., Drain), which are highly efficient; they, unfortunately, met the bottleneck of parsing performance in comparison to semantic-based log parsers, which require labeling and more computational resources. Meanwhile, we noticed that previous studies mainly focused on parsing and often treated preprocessing as an ad hoc step (e.g., masking numbers). However, we argue that both preprocessing and parsing are essential for log parsers to identify dynamic variables: the lack of understanding of preprocessing may hinder the optimal use of parsers and future research. Therefore, our work studied existing log preprocessing approaches based on Loghub, a popular log parsing benchmark. We developed a general preprocessing framework with our findings and evaluated its impact on existing parsers. Our experiments show that the preprocessing framework significantly boosts the performance of four state-of-the-art statistic-based parsers. Drain, the best statistic-based parser, obtained improvements across all four parsing metrics (e.g., Fl score of template accuracy, FTA, increased by 108.9%). Compared to semantic-based parsers, it achieved a 28.3% improvement in grouping accuracy (GA), 38.1 % in FGA, and an 18.6% increase in FTA. Our work pioneers log preprocessing and provides a generalizable framework to enhance log parsing.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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".