The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Explainable LSTM Model for Anomaly Detection in HDFS Log File using Layerwise Relevance Propagation
Abstract
Anomaly detection has always been of utmost importance especially in log file systems. Many different supervised techniques have been explored to deal with this problem. Deep Learning approaches have shown huge promise in log file anomaly detection systems due to their superior ability to learn high level features and non-linearities eliminating the need for any domain specific knowledge or special pre-processing. But this increased performance comes at the cost of inexplicability of the outcomes resulting from the black-box nature of such models. In this paper, we propose a solution utilizing a LSTM-LRP (Long Short Term Memory - Layerwise Relevance Propagation) architecture for discrete event sequences which are obtained by processing log files using log keys derived from individual entries. We extend the idea of LSTM-LRP, used in NLP problems to Log file Systems. The model is evaluated on Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) logs where an interpretation for every timestep and every feature is provided. Our major concern in this paper is the interpretation of the results over accuracy of the model. This not only offers an interpretation of the outcomes but also helps build trust in the model by making sure that spurious correlations are avoided making it suitable for real life applications.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Noto et al. and Paulheim & Meusel try to find a relevant feature subset for anomaly detection by exploring correlations between features.
“Meanwhile, Noto et al. [154] and Paulheim & Meusel [167] try to find a relevant feature subset for anomaly detection by exploring the correlations between features.”
From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [167]
Noto et al. and Paulheim & Meusel assume that anomalies are instances that violate normal dependencies between features.
“They assume that anomalies are those instances that violate the normal dependencies between features.”
From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [167]
Only features related to other features are considered relevant for anomaly detection.
“Therefore, only features that are related to other features are considered relevant for anomaly detection.”
From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [167]
[167] feature selection changes unsupervised AD into supervised AD.
“Changes”
From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [167]
[167] feature selection only explores correlations between features.
“Only explores”
From A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection (2024) · cites this paper as [167]
Citations
Cites
Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997) · Neural Computation · doi:10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 · Cited by 102,318
Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization
Kingma, D. P., & Ba, J. (2014) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1412.6980 · Cited by 98,946
Learning representations by back-propagating errors
Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986) · Nature · doi:10.1038/323533a0 · Cited by 31,892
Samek, W., Wiegand, T., & Müller, K.-R. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1708.08296 · Cited by 1,080
Explaining Recurrent Neural Network Predictions in Sentiment Analysis
Arras, L., Montavon, G., Müller, K.-R., & Samek, W. (2017) · Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis · doi:10.18653/v1/w17-5221 · Cited by 361
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- 10.1145/1629575.1629587 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0364-0213(90)90002-E · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/0893-6080(88)90007-X · DOI
- bengio, 1993, The problem of learning long-term dependencies in recurrent networks, 11831195
- gers, 2002, Learning precise timing with LSTM recurrent networks, Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 115143
- 10.1145/2939672.2939778 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.18653/v1/W16-1601 · DOI
- arras, 2016, What is Relevant in a Text Document?: An Interpretable Machine Learning Approach, arXiv 1612 07
- 10.1145/3133956.3134015 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/ICCV.2017.74 · DOI · Paper page
- gunning, 2016, DARPA Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) Program
- 0, Apache Hadoop Website
- 10.18653/v1/W17-5221 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Explainable Anomaly Detection
Li, Z., Zhu, Y., & Van Leeuwen, M. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · doi:10.1145/3609333 · Cited by 139
“[167] use LSTM to detect anomalies in such systems.”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Patil, A., Wadekar, A., Gupta, T., Vijan, R., & Kazi, F.
- Affiliations
- Veermata Jijabai Technological Institute,Centre of Excellence (CoE) in Complex and Non-linear Dynamical Systems (CNDS),Mumbai,India
- Venue
- 2019 IEEE Bombay Section Signature Conference (IBSSC)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2019-07
- Pages
- 1-6
- OpenAlex
- W3003199728
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 2.16
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Bombay Section Signature Conference (IBSSC) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Software System Performance and Reliability
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Anomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
- Keywords
- HDFS logs, LSTM, layer-wise relevance propagation, explainable AI, model interpretability, black-box models, trust in automation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review