The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Improving Log-Based Anomaly Detection with Component-Aware Analysis
Abstract
Logs are universally available in software systems for troubleshooting. They record system run-time states and messages of system activities. Log analysis is an effective way to diagnosis system exceptions, but it will take a long time for engineers to locate anomalies accurately through logs. Many automatic approaches have been proposed for log-based anomaly detection. However, most of the prior approaches did not consider the corresponding system component of a log message. Such component records the log location, which can help detect the location-sequence-related anomalies. In this paper, we propose LogC, a new Log -based anomaly detection approach with Component-aware analysis. LogC contains two phases: (i) turning log messages into log template sequences and component sequences, (ii) feeding such two sequences to train a combined LSTM model for detecting anomalous logs. LogC only needs normal log sequences to train the combined model. We evaluate LogC on two open-source log datasets: HDFS and ThunderBird. Experimental results show that LogC overall outperforms three baselines (i.e., PCA, IM, and DeepLog) in terms of three metrics (precision, recall, and F-measure).
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?
In the citing paper
“given their increasing popularity for software engineering tasks [53]- [55]”
From Practitioners’ expectations on log anomaly detection (2025) · cites this paper as [55]
Citations
Cites
Drain: an online log parsing approach with fixed depth tree
He, P., Zhu, J., Zheng, Z., & Lyu, M. R. (2017) · 2017 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS) · doi:10.1109/icws.2017.13 · Cited by 943
Tools and benchmarks for automated log parsing
Zhu, J., He, S., Liu, J., He, P., Xie, Q., Zheng, Z., & Lyu, M. R. (2019) · 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP) · doi:10.1109/icse-seip.2019.00021 · Cited by 574
Failure Prediction in IBM BlueGene/L Event Logs
Liang, Y., Zhang, Y., Xiong, H., & Sahoo, R. (2007) · Seventh IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM 2007) · doi:10.1109/icdm.2007.46 · Cited by 292
Research works printed but not linked: 18
- du, 2018, Spell: Online streaming parsing of large unstructured system logs, TKDE, 31, 2213
- 10.1109/ICAC.2004.1301345 · DOI
- 10.1145/2889160.2889232 · DOI
- 10.24963/ijcai.2019/658 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3338906.3338931 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/ICDM.2008.132 · DOI
- 10.1145/2939672.2939712 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/2980024.2872407 · DOI
- 10.1109/DSN.2007.103 · DOI
- 10.1145/1629575.1629587 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1109/ISSRE.2016.21 · DOI
- 10.1109/ASE.2019.00068 · DOI
- lou, 2010, Mining invariants from console logs for system problem detection, USENIX, 1
- 10.1145/3133956.3134015 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/2983323.2983358 · DOI
- 10.1109/MSR.2013.6624054 · DOI
- 10.1109/DSN.2010.5544921 · DOI
- du, 2015, Behavioral anomaly detection approach based on log monitoring, BESC, 188
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Practitioners’ expectations on log anomaly detection
Ma, X., Li, Y., Keung, J., Yu, X., Zou, H., Yang, Z., Sarro, F., & Barr, E. T. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2025.3586700 · Cited by 21
AcLog: An Approach to Detecting Anomalies from System Logs with Active Learning
Duan, C., Jia, T., Li, Y., & Huang, G. (2023) · 2023 IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS) · doi:10.1109/icws60048.2023.00062 · Cited by 20
AFALog: A General Augmentation Framework for Log-based Anomaly Detection with Active Learning
Duan, C., Jia, T., Cai, H., Li, Y., & Huang, G. (2023) · 2023 IEEE 34th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE) · doi:10.1109/issre59848.2023.00068 · Cited by 17
Detection and Classification of Anomalies in WSN-Enabled Cyber-Physical Systems
Gutierrez-Rojas, D., Kalalas, C., Christou, I., Almeida, G., Eldeeb, E., Bakri, S., Marchetti, N., Sant'Ana, J. M. S., Alcaraz López, O. L., Alves, H., et al. (2025) · IEEE Sensors Journal · doi:10.1109/jsen.2024.3520507 · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Yin, K., Yan, M., Xu, L., Xu, Z., Li, Z., Yang, D., & Zhang, X.
- Venue
- 2020 IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance and Evolution (ICSME)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2020-09
- Pages
- 667-671
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 3
- Licence
- Funders
- Research and Development
- Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
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