REVIEW 4 cited by
AL-Bench: A Benchmark for Automatic Logging
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
AL-Bench: A Benchmark for Automatic Logging
read the original abstract
Logging, the practice of inserting log statements into source code, is critical for improving software reliability. Recently, language model-based techniques have been developed to automate log statement generation based on input code. While these tools show promising results in prior studies, the fairness of their results comparisons is not guaranteed due to the use of ad hoc datasets. In addition, existing evaluation approaches exclusively dependent on code similarity metrics fail to capture the impact of code diff on runtime logging behavior, as minor code modifications can induce program uncompilable and substantial discrepancies in log output semantics. To enhance the consistency and reproducibility of logging evaluation, we introduce AL-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark designed specifically for automatic logging tools. AL-Bench includes a large-scale, high-quality, diverse dataset collected from 10 widely recognized projects with varying logging requirements. Moreover, it introduces a novel dynamic evaluation methodology to provide a run-time perspective of logging quality in addition to the traditional static evaluation at source code level. Specifically, AL-Bench not only evaluates the similarity between the oracle and predicted log statements in source code, but also evaluates the difference between the log files printed by both log statements during runtime. AL-Bench reveals significant limitations in existing static evaluation, as all logging tools show average accuracy drops of 37.49%, 23.43%, and 15.80% in predicting log position, level, and message compared to their reported results. Furthermore, with dynamic evaluation, AL-Bench reveals that 20.1%-83.6% of these generated log statements are unable to compile. Moreover, the best-performing tool achieves only 21.32% cosine similarity between the log files of the oracle and generated log statements.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
LLM4Log: A Systematic Review of Large Language Model-based Log Analysis
LLM4Log is a systematic review of 145 papers on LLM-based log analysis that delivers a unified taxonomy, design patterns, and open challenges for reliable adoption in AIOps.
-
ReLog: Execution-Aware Logging with Runtime Feedback for LLM-Oriented Debugging
ReLog iteratively writes and rewrites logging statements guided by runtime feedback, and its logs beat static logging baselines on Defects4J debugging tasks.
-
A Survey on Evaluating Quality and Trustworthiness in LLM-Generated Data
A metric-oriented survey that classifies intrinsic quality and trustworthiness metrics for LLM-generated data across six modalities and documents systematic evaluation gaps in the current literature.
-
LLM4Log: A Systematic Review of Large Language Model-based Log Analysis
Systematic review of 145 papers on LLM-based log analysis, providing a unified taxonomy, common design patterns, evaluation practices, and challenges for deployment under drift and limited labels.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.