mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A Comparative Study on Large Language Models for Log Parsing

arXiv 2409.02474 ↗First posted 4 Sep 2024cs.SE cs.CLcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Background: Log messages provide valuable information about the status of software systems. This information is provided in an unstructured fashion and automated approaches are applied to extract relevant parameters. To ease this process, log parsing can be applied, which transforms log messages into structured log templates. Recent advances in language models have led to several studies that apply ChatGPT to the task of log parsing with promising results. However, the performance of other state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) on the log parsing task remains unclear. Aims: In this study, we investigate the current capability of state-of-the-art LLMs to perform log parsing. Method: We select six recent LLMs, including both paid proprietary (GPT-3.5, Claude 2.1) and four free-to-use open models, and compare their performance on system logs obtained from a selection of mature open-source projects. We design two different prompting approaches and apply the LLMs on 1, 354 log templates across 16 different projects. We evaluate their effectiveness, in the number of correctly identified templates, and the syntactic similarity between the generated templates and the ground truth. Results: We found that free-to-use models are able to compete with paid models, with CodeLlama extracting 10% more log templates correctly than GPT-3.5. Moreover, we provide qualitative insights into the usability of language models (e.g., how easy it is to use their responses). Conclusions: Our results reveal that some of the smaller, free-to-use LLMs can considerably assist log parsing compared to their paid proprietary competitors, especially code-specialized models.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 31 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 4 Sep 2024.

Builds on

17 of 31 references.

References · 17

  1. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
  2. 2023Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Codecited by 2,105
  3. 2023Zephyr: Direct Distillation of LM Alignmentcited by 498
  4. 2021LogBERT: Log Anomaly Detection via BERTcited by 114
  5. 2020Loghub: A Large Collection of System Log Datasets for AI-driven Log Analyticscited by 68
  6. 2018Tools and Benchmarks for Automated Log Parsingcited by 56
  7. 2022Log-based Anomaly Detection with Deep Learning: How Far Are We?cited by 56
  8. 2023Interpretable Online Log Analysis Using Large Language Models with Prompt Strategiescited by 34
  9. 2024LLMParser: An Exploratory Study on Using Large Language Models for Log Parsingcited by 32
  10. 2021LAnoBERT: System Log Anomaly Detection based on BERT Masked Language Modelcited by 30
  11. 2023LILAC: Log Parsing using LLMs with Adaptive Parsing Cachecited by 30
  12. 2022UniParser: A Unified Log Parser for Heterogeneous Log Datacited by 25
5 more
  1. 2023A Large-Scale Evaluation for Log Parsing Techniques: How Far Are We?cited by 25
  2. 2020Self-Supervised Log Parsingcited by 23
  3. 2023Log Parsing: How Far Can ChatGPT Go?cited by 16
  4. 2023An Assessment of ChatGPT on Log Datacited by 11
  5. 2023Log Parsing Evaluation in the Era of Modern Software Systemscited by 6

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 4; 2026: 1.

5 papers.