analiza aiqbench
This empirical study benchmarks sequence-to-sequence architectures, including Transformers and Mamba state-space models, specifically for automated log parsing tasks in software engineering. The findings indicate that while Transformer-based models currently offer the highest accuracy with a 23.4% error reduction over baselines, Mamba provides a compelling alternative by delivering competitive performance at significantly lower computational costs. These results provide practitioners with clear guidance on selecting model architectures based on specific constraints regarding data availability and compute resources for system monitoring applications.
On Sequence-to-Sequence Models for Automated Log Parsing
arXiv:2602.07698v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Context: Log parsing is a critical standard operating procedure in software systems, enabling monitoring, anomaly detection, and failure diagnosis. However, automated log parsing remains challenging due to heterogeneous log formats, distribution shifts between training and deployment data, and the brittleness of rule-based approaches. Objectives: This study aims to systematically evaluate how sequence modelling architecture, representation choice, sequence length, and training data availability influence automated log parsing performance and computational cost. Methods: We conduct a controlled empirical study comparing four sequence modelling architectures: Transformer, Mamba state-space, monodirectional LSTM, and bidirectional LSTM models. In total, 396 models are trained across multiple dataset configurations and evaluated using relative Levenshtein edit distance with statistical significance testing. Results: Transformer achieves the lowest mean relative edit distance (0.111), followed by Mamba (0.145), mono-LSTM (0.186), and bi-LSTM (0.265), where lower values are better. Mamba provides competitive accuracy with substantially lower computational cost. Character-level tokenization generally improves performance, sequence length has negligible practical impact on Transformer accuracy, and both Mamba and Transformer demonstrate stronger sample efficiency than recurrent models. Conclusion: Overall, Transformers reduce parsing error by 23.4%, while Mamba is a strong alternative under data or compute constraints. These results also clarify the roles of representation choice, sequence length, and sample efficiency, providing practical guidance for researchers and practitioners.
Abstract:Context: Log parsing is a critical standard operating procedure in software systems, enabling monitoring, anomaly detection, and failure diagnosis. However, automated log parsing remains challenging due to heterogeneous log formats, distribution shifts between training and deployment data, and the brittleness of rule-based approaches. Objectives: This study aims to systematically evaluate how sequence modelling architecture, representation choice, sequence length, and training data availability influence automated log parsing performance and computational cost. Methods: We conduct a controlled empirical study comparing four sequence modelling architectures: Transformer, Mamba state-space, monodirectional LSTM, and bidirectional LSTM models. In total, 396 models are trained across multiple dataset configurations and evaluated using relative Levenshtein edit distance with statistical significance testing. Results: Transformer achieves the lowest mean relative edit distance (0.111), followed by Mamba (0.145), mono-LSTM (0.186), and bi-LSTM (0.265), where lower values are better. Mamba provides competitive accuracy with substantially lower computational cost. Character-level tokenization generally improves performance, sequence length has negligible practical impact on Transformer accuracy, and both Mamba and Transformer demonstrate stronger sample efficiency than recurrent models. Conclusion: Overall, Transformers reduce parsing error by 23.4%, while Mamba is a strong alternative under data or compute constraints. These results also clarify the roles of representation choice, sequence length, and sample efficiency, providing practical guidance for researchers and practitioners.
Software Engineering (cs.SE); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2602.07698 [cs.SE]
(or arXiv:2602.07698v2 [cs.SE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.07698 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 307 cuvinte