The growth of systems complexity increases the need of automated techniques dedicated to different log analysis tasks such as Log-based Anomaly Detection (LAD). The latter has been widely addressed in the literature, mostly by means of different deep learning techniques. Nevertheless, the focus on deep learning techniques results in less attention being paid to traditional Machine Learning (ML) techniques, which may perform well in many cases, depending on the context and the used datasets. Further, the evaluation of different ML techniques is mostly based on the assessment of their detection accuracy. However, this is is not enough to decide whether or not a specific ML technique is suitable to address the LAD problem. Other aspects to consider include the training and prediction time as well as the sensitivity to hyperparameter tuning. In this paper, we present a comprehensive empirical study, in which we evaluate different supervised and semi-supervised, traditional and deep ML techniques w.r.t. four evaluation criteria: detection accuracy, time performance, sensitivity of detection accuracy as well as time performance to hyperparameter tuning. The experimental results show that supervised traditional and deep ML techniques perform very closely in terms of their detection accuracy and prediction time. Moreover, the overall evaluation of the sensitivity of the detection accuracy of the different ML techniques to hyperparameter tuning shows that supervised traditional ML techniques are less sensitive to hyperparameter tuning than deep learning techniques. Further, semi-supervised techniques yield significantly worse detection accuracy than supervised techniques.

翻译：暂无翻译