Adapting Large Language Models to Log Analysis with Interpretable Domain Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Log analysis represents a critical sub-domain within AI applications that facilitates automatic approaches to fault and error management of large-scaled software systems, saving labors of traditional manual methods. While existing solutions using large language models (LLMs) show promise, they are limited by a significant domain gap between natural and log languages (the latter contains rich domain-specific tokens such as status codes, IP addresses, resource pathes), which restricts their effectiveness in real-world applications. However, directly adapting general-purpose LLMs to log analysis using raw logs may degrade their performance due to inconsistent token distribution. In this paper, we present a domain adaptation approach that addresses these limitations by integrating interpretable domain knowledge into open-source LLMs through continual pre-training (CPT), which bridges this domain gap by adapting LLMs on interpretable natural texts with log knowledge (instead of raw logs) to reduce distribution discrepancy. To achieve this, we developed NLPLog, a comprehensive dataset containing over 250,000 question-answer pairs on log-related knowledge. Our resulting model, SuperLog, achieves the best performance across four log analysis tasks, with an average accuracy improvement of 12.01% over the second-best model. Ablation study also suggests advantages of domain adaption using interpretable log knowledge over using raw logs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".