On Sequence-to-Sequence Models for Automated Log Parsing
Fuente:
arXiv
Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2026
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866912887918821376 |
|---|---|
| author | Sorrenti, Adam Miranskyy, Andriy |
| author_facet | Sorrenti, Adam Miranskyy, Andriy |
| contents | 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2602_07698 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | On Sequence-to-Sequence Models for Automated Log Parsing Sorrenti, Adam Miranskyy, Andriy Software Engineering Computation and Language 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. |
| title | On Sequence-to-Sequence Models for Automated Log Parsing |
| topic | Software Engineering Computation and Language |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.07698 |