LogBabylon: A Unified Framework for Cross-Log File Integration and Analysis

Dana Alsagheer; Keshav Kasichainula; Lei Xu; Rabimba Karanjai; Shou-Hsuan Stephen Huang; Weidong Shi; Yang Lu

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 26 references

LogBabylon: A Unified Framework for Cross-Log File Integration and Analysis

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read LogBabylon claims a single LLM+RAG pipeline parses diverse logs better than specialized parsers without per-format tuning.

desk verdict The framework is a sensible integration, but the paper's central performance claim is contradicted by its own Table 2. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12364 v1 pith:5ES2XJEN submitted 2024-12-16 cs.SE cs.AI

Rabimba Karanjai , Yang Lu , Dana Alsagheer , Keshav Kasichainula , Lei Xu , Weidong Shi , Shou-Hsuan Stephen Huang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.SEcs.AI

keywords logparsinglargelanguagemodelsretrieval-augmentedgenerationprefixparsetreetemplateextractionanomalydetectionconsolidationin-contextlearning

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that heterogeneous system logs can be consolidated and interpreted by one unified framework rather than by separate, format-specific tools. The proposed system, LogBabylon, combines a prefix parse tree with LLM-driven template extraction, retrieval-augmented generation, variable-aware prompting, and in-context learning. The authors claim that, even without fine-tuning for a specific log format, LogBabylon outperforms existing log parsers on standard grouping and parsing accuracy metrics across fourteen log datasets. If true, this would reduce the manual effort, domain expertise, and per-format tuning normally required for log analysis, while also adding human-readable anomaly explanations.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the combination of a prefix parse tree with LLM-based template extraction and a template pool. The parse tree matches incoming logs by token sequence under strict, loose, or no-match categories; when no strict match exists, the LLM proposes a template, which is checked against a template pool and possibly merged with a similar cluster. This hybrid design is what lets LogBabylon avoid per-format regular expressions and hyperparameter tuning while still scaling beyond calling an LLM for every line. RAG then supplies retrieved normal log entries as context for anomaly judgments, and variable-aware prompting with k-shot demonstrations guides the LLM to classify variables such as timestamps, IP addresses, and error codes.

What would settle it

A reader could run LogBabylon with the published settings on a fresh collection of logs outside loghub-2k and logPub, such as logs from a previously unseen application or network device, and compare its grouping and parsing accuracy against Drain and Uniparser using the same budget of labeled examples; if LogBabylon's accuracy drops below the baselines on that unseen data, the central claim of format-agnostic superiority is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that LogBabylon, a three-stage framework of classification, consolidation, and interpretation, can parse logs from many sources with higher grouping accuracy (GA), full grouping accuracy (FGA), and parsing accuracy (PA) than existing methods, without fine-tuning for each log format. The parsing stage uses a prefix parse tree with strict and loose token matching, calling an LLM only when no strict match is found; the LLM generates a template using variable-aware prompting and three in-context demonstrations. The consolidation stage retrieves similar past log entries from a vector database and frames anomaly detection as a question-answering task. The interpretation stage produces human-readable summaries and explanations. The authors report that on the logPub dataset LogBabylon 'significantly outperforms all other methods' on these key metrics, and that adding in-context learning further improves template-level metrics.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that using loghub-2k as a development set to tune prompts, merge criteria, and granularity metrics does not bias the reported superiority on that same benchmark; if tuning on the test set inflated the numbers, the claim of outperforming other parsers would not generalize to new log sources.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If LogBabylon's accuracy claims hold, organizations could replace format-specific log parsers with a single plug-and-play parser that works across distributed systems, operating systems, and applications.
The RAG-based anomaly detection could turn log monitoring from raw keyword matching into context-aware question answering, producing explanations rather than just alerts.
Variable-aware prompting and in-context learning suggest that LLM parsing accuracy can be improved without retraining, by supplying a few examples from the target log source.
The prefix-tree plus LLM design could lower the computational cost of LLM-based parsing by limiting LLM calls to genuinely new template patterns.
The reported strong performance on large logs like Thunderbird and HPC suggests the approach may scale to high-volume production log streams if the LLM call frequency remains low.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A testable extension is to measure how LogBabylon's accuracy degrades as the number of in-context demonstrations and seed examples is reduced, to find the minimum supervision needed for each log family.
The paper implies that the same retrieval-and-answer mechanism used for anomaly detection could also support root-cause diagnosis across correlated logs, but it does not evaluate that directly.
Since the authors position loghub-2k as a development set for tuning prompts and merge criteria, an independent evaluation on a held-out set of unseen log formats would clarify how much of the reported advantage is format-specific tuning versus genuine generalization.
The granularity distance metrics (GGD and PGD) are introduced as a way to compare template granularity, but the broader claim that higher parsing accuracy translates into better downstream anomaly detection is not tested end-to-end.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The short version: LogBabylon is a reasonable engineering integration of a Drain-style prefix tree with LLM template extraction and RAG, but its headline claim of state-of-the-art parsing performance is not supported by the data in its own Table 2. The paper needs major revision before I'd trust the numbers.

What's genuinely new and good: the architecture is clearly described—using the prefix tree for fast matching and invoking the LLM only when no strict match exists is a sensible way to control API cost. Variable-aware prompting and in-context learning are reasonable extensions, and the paper honestly notes that loghub-2k was used as a development set for tuning prompts and merge criteria. The effort to evaluate on the larger logPub dataset is also worthwhile.

Where it falls apart: Section 4.2.3 states that 'LogBabylon significantly outperforms all other methods' on GA, FGA, and PA. Table 2 does not support that. On Linux, Drain's GA is 68.6% vs LogBabylon's 23.8%; on Apache, Drain gets 100% vs 88%; on HDFS, UniParser gets 94.8% PA vs 83.4%. The paper gives no win/loss summary, no significance test, and no aggregate measure that would justify 'significantly outperforms.' The GGD and PGD columns in Table 2 are never defined, so those numbers are uninterpretable. The RAG-based anomaly detection and human-readable insights—two of the five stated contributions—are never evaluated at all. And because loghub-2k was used to tune the system before being reported as a benchmark, the Table 1 results carry development-set bias; the authors acknowledge this but still present the results as competitive.

These are not cosmetic issues. The central comparative claim is contradicted by the paper's own evidence. That said, the framework itself is coherent and the evaluation problems are fixable in principle: define all metrics, report per-dataset results without overclaiming, add a proper significance analysis, and actually evaluate the RAG anomaly detection component.

For a reading group, this could spark useful discussion about evaluation hygiene in LLM-based systems. I'd bring it with a strong caveat. I would not cite it in its current form. A serious editor could send it to review, but the reviewers should go in expecting to demand substantial revisions.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. LogBabylon is a proposed framework for parsing, consolidating, and interpreting heterogeneous log files using large language models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemma2) combined with a prefix parse tree, a template pool, retrieval-augmented generation over a vector database, variable-aware prompting, and in-context learning. The system is evaluated on the loghub-2k and logPub benchmarks, compared against Drain, UniParser, DivLog, and ChatGPT-based parsing, on metrics including Grouping Accuracy (GA), Parsing Accuracy (PA), F1 of Grouping Accuracy (FGA), F1 of Template Accuracy (FTA), and the paper's own 'granularity distance' metrics GGD and PGD. The paper's central claim is that 'even without any fine-tuning for specific log formats, LogBabylon significantly outperforms all other methods' in GA, FGA, and PA (Section 4.2.3).

Significance. The problem of cross-log integration and interpretation is practically important, and LogBabylon's architecture is described in enough detail to be reimplemented. The use of a large public benchmark (logPub) and the systematic comparison with existing parsers are strengths, as is the explicit attention to in-context learning and different LLM backends. However, the claimed significance—state-of-the-art parsing accuracy—is not supported by the paper's own tables: on several logPub datasets, Drain and UniParser outperform LogBabylon on the key metrics. Combined with the use of loghub-2k as a development set before reporting its results and the absence of definitions for GGD/PGD, the contribution is currently not established to the standard required for a journal. The framework may still be useful as an engineering integration, but the empirical evidence for superiority is lacking.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.2.3, Table 2] The assertion that LogBabylon 'significantly outperforms all other methods' in GA, FGA, and PA is contradicted by Table 2. On HDFS, UniParser achieves GA=100.0, FGA=96.8, PA=94.8 whereas LogBabylon reports GA=88.0, FGA=65.7, PA=83.4. On Linux, Drain achieves GA=68.6, FGA=77.8, PA=11.1 versus LogBabylon's GA=23.8, FGA=70.5, PA=14.3. On Apache and Zookeeper, Drain and UniParser exceed LogBabylon on GA and FGA. The paper provides no aggregate significance test, no per-dataset win/loss count, and no error bars, so the phrase 'significantly outperforms' cannot be verified. This is a load-bearing error because the entire contribution is framed as a performance advance over existing methods.
[Section 4.2.1, Table 1] The paper explicitly states that the loghub-2k dataset was used 'as a development set for refining various aspects of the system'—including prompts, cluster merging criteria, and verification. Yet Table 1 reports loghub-2k results as evidence of competitive or superior performance over DivLog and ChatGPT-based parsers. Because the system's prompts and thresholds were tuned on this dataset before reporting the results, the numbers are subject to selection bias and do not demonstrate generalization. The authors acknowledge the limitation in the text, but they still use the tuned results as a headline comparison, which invalidates the claim of superiority on that dataset.
[Section 3.4, Tables 2 and 3] The metrics GGD and PGD appear as columns in Tables 2 and 3 and are described in Section 4 as evaluating 'granularity distance,' but no formal definition is provided anywhere in the paper. Section 3.4 defines GA, PA, FGA, FTA, PTA, and RTA, but not GGD or PGD. Without a precise definition of these metrics, the reader cannot interpret the numerical values or assess whether they measure what the authors claim. If these are newly introduced metrics, they must be defined in Section 3.4 alongside the other evaluation metrics.
[Section 4.2.3] The paper states that 'When we incorporate in-context learning (ICL) to calibrate LogBabylon for specific log formats (LogBabylon-C), we see a further improvement, particularly in template parsing metrics like PA and FTA,' but no results for LogBabylon-C are presented in any table. This claim is therefore unverifiable. Either the data should be included, or the statement should be removed or clearly marked as a preliminary observation.

minor comments (4)

[Section 4.2.3] The sentence 'While LogBabylon's overall accuracy (PA) is slightly lower' contradicts the preceding sentence asserting superiority on PA; this internal inconsistency should be resolved.
[Table 1] The third column header says 'Clustering Accuracy' while the text consistently uses 'Grouping Accuracy (GA)'; please align terminology across the paper.
[Section 4.1.3] The sample size is presented in a display equation (Equation 1), but it is not an equation; presenting the setting as a sentence or a table would be clearer.
[References] The citation '[Xu et al.(2023)]' is referred to as 'DivLog' in the text, but the reference list entry reads 'Prompting for automatic log template extraction'; the association should be made explicit at first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: benchmark-based empirical evaluation; dev-set tuning and overstated superiority claim are validity issues, not circular derivation.

full rationale

LogBabylon is an empirical systems paper: its parsing algorithm (prefix parse tree plus LLM template extraction plus merge rules) is described operationally in Algorithm 1, and its reported numbers are benchmark measurements, not quantities derived from its own assumptions. I found no equation in which an output variable is defined in terms of the claimed prediction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations in Section 1 (code translation, unit-test generation, smart contracts) are contextual and do not support the log-parsing claims, so no self-citation chain is load-bearing. The admitted development-set use of loghub-2k is a disclosed evaluation-bias risk: Section 4.2.1 states the dataset was used 'as a development set for refining various aspects of the system. This includes optimizing the prompts used for LLM-driven template extraction, fine-tuning the criteria for cluster merging, and enhancing the overall verification process.' That makes Table 1's comparison vulnerable to overfitting, but it does not make the reported GA/PA numbers equal to the tuned inputs by construction. Similarly, Section 4.2.3's claim that 'LogBabylon significantly outperforms all other methods in key metrics like Grouping Accuracy (GA), Full Accuracy (FGA), and Parsing Accuracy (PA)' is contradicted by Table 2 on HDFS, Linux, Apache, and Zookeeper, but that is an unsupported comparative claim, not circular reasoning. The GGD/PGD columns are presented without formal definitions, so there is no derivation chain to be circular. Honest non-finding: no significant circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the validity of the benchmark annotations, the assumption that the LLM-based extraction produces correct templates, the untested RAG improvement, and the tuning choices made on one of the test sets. The GGD/PGD metrics are used without definition, making part of the evaluation unverifiable.

free parameters (6)

LLM temperature = 0
Set to 0 to minimize output variability; a hyperparameter choice affecting reproducibility.
In-context learning sample size = 32
Number of log-template pairs uniformly sampled from the first 10% of each dataset; chosen by the authors and affects template extraction quality.
Demonstration count k = 3
Number of examples in the ICL prompt for each LLM call.
Seed example count = 10
Initial examples for variable classification.
Cluster merge criteria = Not specified
The merge decision in Algorithm 1 (check_merge) depends on unspecified thresholds or heuristics; tuning on loghub-2k is acknowledged.
Granularity distance metrics (GGD, PGD) = Not defined
Used in Table 2 but no formal definition is given; comparisons using these metrics cannot be reproduced.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption LLMs produce semantically accurate log templates without fine-tuning for each log source.
Core to the design, invoked throughout Section 3.1; not formally established.
domain assumption Retrieval of normal log entries via dense vectors improves anomaly classification.
Stated in Section 3.2 but never experimentally validated.
domain assumption Ground-truth templates in loghub-2k and logPub are correct.
Evaluation depends on these annotations, cited from Zhu et al. 2023b and Jiang et al. 2024.
domain assumption The prefix parse tree and strict/loose matching produce correct clusters.
Algorithm 1 assumes the tree and matching rules preserve template structure, inherited from Drain.

invented entities (1)

Granularity distance metrics (GGD, PGD)
purpose: Quantify template granularity differences in logPub evaluation.
Mentioned in Section 4 and used in Table 2, but never defined; cannot be checked or compared with other metrics.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of LogBabylon: A Unified Framework for Cross-Log File Integration and Analysis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ES2XJEN

@misc{pith2026241212364,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: LogBabylon: A Unified Framework for Cross-Log File Integration and Analysis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ES2XJEN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12364}
}

read the original abstract

Logs are critical resources that record events, activities, or messages produced by software applications, operating systems, servers, and network devices. However, consolidating the heterogeneous logs and cross-referencing them is challenging and complicated. Manually analyzing the log data is time-consuming and prone to errors. LogBabylon is a centralized log data consolidating solution that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) integrated with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) technology. LogBabylon interprets the log data in a human-readable way and adds insight analysis of the system performance and anomaly alerts. It provides a paramount view of the system landscape, enabling proactive management and rapid incident response. LogBabylon consolidates diverse log sources and enhances the extracted information's accuracy and relevancy. This facilitates a deeper understanding of log data, supporting more effective decision-making and operational efficiency. Furthermore, LogBabylon streamlines the log analysis process, significantly reducing the time and effort required to interpret complex datasets. Its capabilities extend to generating context-aware insights, offering an invaluable tool for continuous monitoring, performance optimization, and security assurance in dynamic computing environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12364 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** An example of the data structures in our method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** LLM Semantic Analysis in LogBabylon 3.3.2 Variable-Aware Prompting Inspired by research [Li et al.(2023)] that emphasizes the importance of identifying and classifying variables within logs, LogBabylon employs variable-aware prompting. This technique encourages the LLM to not only identify which parts of the log message are variables, but also to categorize them into specific types[Li et al.(2023)], such as timesta… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

[Cal`ı et al.(2005)] Andrea Cal `ı, Domenico Lembo, and Riccardo Rosati

work page 2005
[4]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00234 (2022)

A survey on in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00234 (2022). [Ekelhart et al.(2018a)] Andreas Ekelhart, Elmar Kiesling, and Kabul Kurniawan. 2018a. Taming the logs - V ocabu- laries for semantic security analysis. Procedia Computer Science 137 (2018), 109–119. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.procs.2018.09.011 Proceedings of the 14th International C...

arXiv 2022
[5]

In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the F oundations of Software Engineering

Investigating and improving log parsing in practice. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the F oundations of Software Engineering. 1566–1577. [Gao et al.(2023)] Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, and Haofen Wang

work page 2023
[8]

In2023 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData)

LogGPT: Log Anomaly Detection via GPT. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 1117–1122. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData59044.2023.10386543 [He et al.(2017a)] Pinjia He, Jieming Zhu, Zibin Zheng, and Michael R. Lyu. 2017a. Drain: An Online Log Parsing Approach with Fixed Depth Tree. In 201...

arXiv 2017
[9]

In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis

A large-scale evaluation for log parsing techniques: How far are we?. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis . 223–234. [Karanjai et al.(2024a)] Rabimba Karanjai, Aftab Hussain, Md Rafiqul Islam Rabin, Lei Xu, Weidong Shi, and Mo- hammad Amin Alipour. 2024a. Harnessing the Power of LLMs: Automating ...

arXiv 2024
[10]

LookALike: Human Mimicry based collaborative decision making

Who is smarter? an empirical study of ai-based smart contract creation. In 2023 5th Conference on Blockchain Research & Applications for Innovative Networks and Services (BRAINS) . IEEE, 1–8. [Karanjai and Shi(2024a)] Rabimba Karanjai and Weidong Shi. 2024a. LookALike: Human Mimicry based collabo- rative decision making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10824 (2...

work page Pith review arXiv 2024
[11]

Journal of Network and Systems Man- agement 32, 3 (2024),

Benchmarking Large Language Models for Log Analysis, Security, and Interpretation. Journal of Network and Systems Man- agement 32, 3 (2024),

work page 2024
[17]

In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)

Did we miss something important? studying and exploring variable-aware log abstraction. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . IEEE, 830–842. [Pan(2009)] Jeff Z Pan

work page 2009

Show all 26 references

[19]

https://www.splunk.com/en_us/pdfs/white-paper/ splunk-for-managed-security-service-providers-technical-architecture.pdf [Sumo Logic(2024)] Sumo Logic

Splunk for the MSSP Technical Archi- tecture. https://www.splunk.com/en_us/pdfs/white-paper/ splunk-for-managed-security-service-providers-technical-architecture.pdf [Sumo Logic(2024)] Sumo Logic

2024
[20]

https://help.sumologic.com/ [Team et al.(2024)] Gemma Team, Morgane Riviere, Shreya Pathak, Pier Giuseppe Sessa, Cassidy Hardin, Surya Bhupatiraju, L ´eonard Hussenot, Thomas Mesnard, Bobak Shahriari, Alexandre Ram ´e, et al

2024
[21]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00118 (2024)

Gemma 2: Improving open language models at a practical size. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00118 (2024). [text-embedding-ada-002([n. d.])] text-embedding-ada-002 [n. d.]. https://openai.com/index/ new-and-improved-embedding-model/ New and improved embedding model. 14 LogBabylon: A...

2024 arXiv
[22]

SolarWinds Log- gly Playbook. https://www.loggly.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2012_loggly_ebook_ LogglyPlaybook.pdf [Wei et al.(2022)] Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al

2022
[23]

Advances in neural information processing systems 35 (2022), 24824–24837

Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems 35 (2022), 24824–24837. [Xu et al.(2023)] Junjielong Xu, Ruichun Yang, Yintong Huo, Chengyu Zhang, and Pinjia He

2022
[24]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09950 (2023)

Prompting for automatic log template extraction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09950 (2023). [Yu et al.(2023)] Siyu Yu, Pinjia He, Ningjiang Chen, and Yifan Wu

2023 arXiv
[25]

IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 16, 5 (2023), 3224–3237

Brain: Log parsing with bidirectional parallel tree. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing 16, 5 (2023), 3224–3237. [Zhong et al.(2024)] Aoxiao Zhong, Dengyao Mo, Guiyang Liu, Jinbu Liu, Qingda Lu, Qi Zhou, Jiesheng Wu, Quanzheng Li, and Qingsong Wen

2023
[26]

In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

LogParser-LLM: Advancing Efficient Log Parsing with Large Lan- guage Models. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 4559–4570. [Zhu et al.(2023a)] Jieming Zhu, Shilin He, Pinjia He, Jinyang Liu, and Michael R. Lyu. 2023a. Loghu...

2023 arXiv
[59]

[Lee et al.(2019)] Kenton Lee, Ming-Wei Chang, and Kristina Toutanova

2019
[2005]

Journal of Applied Logic 3, 2 (2005), 308–328

A comprehensive semantic framework for data integration systems. Journal of Applied Logic 3, 2 (2005), 308–328. [Chen et al.(2022)] Zhuangbin Chen, Jinyang Liu, Wenwei Gu, Yuxin Su, and Michael R. Lyu

2005
[2009]

In Handbook on ontologies

Resource description framework. In Handbook on ontologies. Springer, 71–90. [Rapid7 InsightOps([n. d.])] Rapid7 InsightOps [n. d.]. https://docs.rapid7.com/insightops/ [Splunk(2021)] Splunk

2021
[2019]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00300 (2019)

Latent retrieval for weakly supervised open domain question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.00300 (2019). [Lewis et al.(2020)] Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich K ¨uttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim R...

2019 arXiv
[2020]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 9459–

Retrieval-augmented gen- eration for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 9459–

2020
[2021]

arXiv:2005.11401 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401 [Li et al.(2023)] Zhenhao Li, Chuan Luo, Tse-Hsun Chen, Weiyi Shang, Shilin He, Qingwei Lin, and Dongmei Zhang

Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. arXiv:2005.11401 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401 [Li et al.(2023)] Zhenhao Li, Chuan Luo, Tse-Hsun Chen, Weiyi Shang, Shilin He, Qingwei Lin, and Dongmei Zhang

2023 arXiv
[2022]

Experience Report: Deep Learning-based System Log Analysis for Anomaly Detection. arXiv:2107.05908 [cs.SE] https: //arxiv.org/abs/2107.05908 [Dong et al.(2022)] Qingxiu Dong, Lei Li, Damai Dai, Ce Zheng, Zhiyong Wu, Baobao Chang, Xu Sun, Jingjing Xu, and Zhifang Sui

2022 arXiv
[2023]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997 (2023)

Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997 (2023). [Giamattei et al.(2024)] L. Giamattei, A. Guerriero, R. Pietrantuono, S. Russo, I. Malavolta, T. Islam, M. D ˆınga, A. Koziolek, S. Singh, M. Armbruster, J.M. Gutierrez-...

2023 arXiv
[2024]

Journal of Systems and Software 208 (2024), 111906

Monitoring tools for DevOps and microservices: A systematic grey literature review. Journal of Systems and Software 208 (2024), 111906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jss.2023.111906 13 LogBabylon: A Unified Framework for Cross-Log File Integration and Analysis A PREPRINT [Han et ...

2024
[9474]

[Lewis et al.(2021)] Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich K ¨uttler, Mike Lewis, Wen tau Yih, Tim Rockt ¨aschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela

2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

[Cal`ı et al.(2005)] Andrea Cal `ı, Domenico Lembo, and Riccardo Rosati

work page 2005

[2] [4]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00234 (2022)

A survey on in-context learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00234 (2022). [Ekelhart et al.(2018a)] Andreas Ekelhart, Elmar Kiesling, and Kabul Kurniawan. 2018a. Taming the logs - V ocabu- laries for semantic security analysis. Procedia Computer Science 137 (2018), 109–119. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.procs.2018.09.011 Proceedings of the 14th International C...

arXiv 2022

[3] [5]

In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the F oundations of Software Engineering

Investigating and improving log parsing in practice. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the F oundations of Software Engineering. 1566–1577. [Gao et al.(2023)] Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, and Haofen Wang

work page 2023

[4] [8]

In2023 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData)

LogGPT: Log Anomaly Detection via GPT. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (BigData). IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 1117–1122. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData59044.2023.10386543 [He et al.(2017a)] Pinjia He, Jieming Zhu, Zibin Zheng, and Michael R. Lyu. 2017a. Drain: An Online Log Parsing Approach with Fixed Depth Tree. In 201...

arXiv 2017

[5] [9]

In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis

A large-scale evaluation for log parsing techniques: How far are we?. In Proceedings of the 33rd ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis . 223–234. [Karanjai et al.(2024a)] Rabimba Karanjai, Aftab Hussain, Md Rafiqul Islam Rabin, Lei Xu, Weidong Shi, and Mo- hammad Amin Alipour. 2024a. Harnessing the Power of LLMs: Automating ...

arXiv 2024

[6] [10]

LookALike: Human Mimicry based collaborative decision making

Who is smarter? an empirical study of ai-based smart contract creation. In 2023 5th Conference on Blockchain Research & Applications for Innovative Networks and Services (BRAINS) . IEEE, 1–8. [Karanjai and Shi(2024a)] Rabimba Karanjai and Weidong Shi. 2024a. LookALike: Human Mimicry based collabo- rative decision making. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.10824 (2...

work page Pith review arXiv 2024

[7] [11]

Journal of Network and Systems Man- agement 32, 3 (2024),

Benchmarking Large Language Models for Log Analysis, Security, and Interpretation. Journal of Network and Systems Man- agement 32, 3 (2024),

work page 2024

[8] [17]

In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE)

Did we miss something important? studying and exploring variable-aware log abstraction. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . IEEE, 830–842. [Pan(2009)] Jeff Z Pan

work page 2009