aiqbench analysis
This empirical study clarifies the trade-offs between adaptation strategies, model scaling, and quantization levels for LLM-based log anomaly detection across three public datasets. The findings demonstrate that comparable detection accuracy can vary significantly in computational cost, while low-bit quantization largely preserves performance even under structural and semantic noise. These insights offer practical guidance for deploying large models in security-critical infrastructure without relying solely on conventional accuracy metrics.
Towards Understanding LLM-Based Log Anomaly Detection: An Empirical Study of Performance, Efficiency, and Robustness
arXiv:2609.31371v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising performance in log anomaly detection, yet how their adaptation strategies, architectures, and deployment configurations affect detection effectiveness remains insufficiently understood. To investigate these factors, we conduct a systematic empirical analysis across three public log datasets, examining different adaptation strategies, model architectures, parameter scales, and quantization settings. Our results reveal substantial performance differences across adaptation strategies, while model scaling yields varying detection gains across datasets. We further observe that models with comparable detection accuracy can exhibit markedly different computational costs, and that low-bit quantization largely preserves detection performance in the evaluated configurations. Finally, we examine detection robustness under structural, semantic, and label noise at different perturbation levels. These findings provide empirical insights into the performance, efficiency, and robustness of LLM-based log anomaly detection, highlighting practical considerations beyond conventional accuracy-oriented evaluation.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising performance in log anomaly detection, yet how their adaptation strategies, architectures, and deployment configurations affect detection effectiveness remains insufficiently understood. To investigate these factors, we conduct a systematic empirical analysis across three public log datasets, examining different adaptation strategies, model architectures, parameter scales, and quantization settings. Our results reveal substantial performance differences across adaptation strategies, while model scaling yields varying detection gains across datasets. We further observe that models with comparable detection accuracy can exhibit markedly different computational costs, and that low-bit quantization largely preserves detection performance in the evaluated configurations. Finally, we examine detection robustness under structural, semantic, and label noise at different perturbation levels. These findings provide empirical insights into the performance, efficiency, and robustness of LLM-based log anomaly detection, highlighting practical considerations beyond conventional accuracy-oriented evaluation.
6 pages, 2 figures, 3 tables. Submitted to IEEE ICASSP 2027
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Cryptography and Security (cs.CR)
arXiv:2609.31371 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.31371v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.31371 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 245 words
Related coverage
Latent reasoning architectures would likely undermine CoT, our strongest oversight tool
AI Alignment Forum · Sep 23, 2026

PIRAMID: Progress and Plans
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026
News Archive 2026
Quantum Computing Report · Jul 25, 2026
Untrusted advice for AI control: Short, strong advice significantly uplifts weak LLMs
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026