Cited by 35

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

CAT: Beyond Efficient Transformer for Content-Aware Anomaly Detection in Event Sequences

Zhang, Shengming, Liu, Yanchi, Zhang, Xuchao, Cheng, Wei, Chen, Haifeng, Xiong, Hui·2022·Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining

Abstract

It is critical and important to detect anomalies in event sequences, which becomes widely available in many application domains. Indeed, various efforts have been made to capture abnormal patterns from event sequences through sequential pattern analysis or event representation learning. However, existing approaches usually ignore the semantic information of event content. To this end, in this paper, we propose a self-attentive encoder-decoder transformer framework, Content-Aware Transformer CAT, for anomaly detection in event sequences. In CAT, the encoder learns preamble event sequence representations with content awareness, and the decoder embeds sequences under detection into a latent space, where anomalies are distinguishable. Specifically, the event content is first fed to a content-awareness layer, generating representations of each event. The encoder accepts preamble event representation sequence, generating feature maps. In the decoder, an additional token is added at the beginning of the sequence under detection, denoting the sequence status. A one-class objective together with sequence reconstruction loss is collectively applied to train our framework under the label efficiency scheme. Furthermore, CAT is optimized under a scalable and efficient setting. Finally, extensive experiments on three real-world datasets demonstrate the superiority of CAT.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3534678.3539155

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Most of the reviewed papers evaluate their techniques on HDFS and BGL datasets, typically grouping logs into sequences using sessions and window sizes.

    “Most of the papers evaluate their techniques on two public datasets, Hadoop Distributed File System (HDFS) [51] and Blue Gene/L supercomputer (BGL) [52], typically grouping logs into sequences using sessions and window sizes.”

    From Practitioners’ expectations on log anomaly detection (2025) · cites this paper as [52]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. 10.1016/j.knosys.2017.03.012 · DOI
  2. 10.1145/1755913.1755926 · DOI
  3. 10.1137/1.9781611972788.22 · DOI
  4. 10.1145/342009.335388 · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1109/TSMCC.2008.2007248 · DOI
  6. Varun Chandola, Arindam Banerjee, and Vipin Kumar. 2010. Anomaly detection for discrete sequences: A survey. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering 24, 5 (2010), 823--839.
  7. Rui Chen, Shenglin Zhang, Dongwen Li, Yuzhe Zhang, Fangrui Guo, Weibin Meng, Dan Pei, Yuzhi Zhang, Xu Chen, and Yuqing Liu. 2020. LogTransfer: Cross-system log anomaly detection for software systems with transfer learning. In ISSRE. IEEE, 37--47.
  8. Sung-Bae Cho and Hyuk-Jang Park. 2003. Efficient anomaly detection by modeling privilege flows using hidden Markov model. computers & security 22, 1 (2003), 45--55.
  9. Djork-Arné Clevert, Thomas Unterthiner, and Sepp Hochreiter. 2015. Fast and accurate deep network learning by exponential linear units (elus). arXiv preprint arXiv:1511.07289 (2015). · arXiv
  10. Christophe Combet, Christophe Blanchet, Christophe Geourjon, and Gilbert Deleage. 2000. NPS@: network protein sequence analysis. Trends in biochemical sciences 25, 3 (2000), 147--150.
  11. 10.1109/ICRA.2019.8793887 · DOI
  12. 10.1145/3133956.3134015 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1016/j.icte.2020.06.003 · DOI
  14. 10.1007/s11235-018-0475-8 · DOI
  15. 10.1109/MTS.2011.940293 · DOI
  16. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber. 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation 9, 8 (1997), 1735--1780.
  17. 10.1109/TNSM.2020.3034647 · DOI
  18. 10.1145/2889160.2889232 · DOI
  19. Fei Tony Liu, Kai Ming Ting, and Zhi-Hua Zhou. 2008. Isolation forest. In 2008 eighth ieee international conference on data mining. IEEE, 413--422.
  20. Zhen Liu, Nathalie Japkowicz, Ruoyu Wang, Yongming Cai, Deyu Tang, and Xianfa Cai. 2020. A statistical pattern based feature extraction method on system call traces for anomaly detection. Information and Software Technology 126 (2020).
  21. Jian-Guang Lou, Qiang Fu, Shengqi Yang, Ye Xu, and Jiang Li. 2010. Mining Invariants from Console Logs for System Problem Detection. In USENIX Annual Technical Conference. 1--14.
  22. Song-song Lu, Xiao-feng Wang, and Li Mao. 2014. Network security situation awareness based on network simulation. In 2014 IEEE workshop on electronics, computer and applications. IEEE, 512--517.
  23. 10.1109/ICCCN49398.2020.9209707 · DOI
  24. Weibin Meng, Ying Liu, Yichen Zhu, Shenglin Zhang, Dan Pei, Yuqing Liu, Yihao Chen, Ruizhi Zhang, Shimin Tao, Pei Sun, et al. 2019. LogAnomaly: Unsupervised Detection of Sequential and Quantitative Anomalies in Unstructured Logs. In IJCAI, Vol. 19. 4739--4745.
  25. Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:1301.3781 (2013). · arXiv
  26. Adam Oliner and Jon Stearley. 2007. What supercomputers say: A study of five system logs. In 37th annual IEEE/IFIP international conference on dependable systems and networks (DSN'07). IEEE, 575--584.
  27. 10.3115/v1/D14-1162 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Bernhard Schölkopf, John C Platt, John Shawe-Taylor, Alex J Smola, and Robert C Williamson. 2001. Estimating the support of a high-dimensional distribution. Neural computation 13, 7 (2001), 1443--1471.
  29. David MJ Tax and Robert PW Duin. 2004. Support vector data description. Machine learning 54, 1 (2004), 45--66.
  30. Ashish Vaswani Noam Shazeer Niki Parmar Jakob Uszkoreit Llion Jones Aidan N Gomez Lukasz Kaiser and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 5998--6008.
  31. ZhiweiWang, Zhengzhang Chen, Jingchao Ni, Hui Liu, Haifeng Chen, and Jiliang Tang. 2021. Multi-scale one-class recurrent neural networks for discrete event sequence anomaly detection. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. 3726--3734.
  32. 10.1109/SECPRI.1999.766910 · DOI
  33. Bryan Watkins. 2014. The impact of cyber attacks on the private sector. Briefing Paper, Association for International Affair 12 (2014), 1--11.
  34. 10.1109/COMST.2014.2336610 · DOI
  35. 10.1145/1629575.1629587 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1109/ICSE43902.2021.00130 · DOI
  37. 10.1109/TNSM.2021.3125967 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1002/qre.2364 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, S., Liu, Y., Zhang, X., Cheng, W., Chen, H., & Xiong, H.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers University, Newark, NJ, USA
  • NEC Labs America, Princeton, NJ, USA
Venue
Proceedings of the 28th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-08-14
Pages
4541-4550
Cited by
35
References
6
Funders
NSF (National Science Foundation) (III-2006387, III-2040799, III-1814510)

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