This invention relates generally to computer parsers, and, more specifically, to automatically creating a parser for a group of raw event logs.
Enterprise IT products generate a large variety and volume of event logs with data related to user activities in a network. For example, Microsoft's Active Directory (AD) records user-to-machine authentication events in AD domain controllers on a Windows environment; firewall security products generate alerts for user activities crossing the network perimeter; and endpoint products track file actions such as file deletion and creation, etc.
Various systems may use the event logs to manage an IT network. For instance, event logs are used by cybersecurity systems to detect potential cyberthreats to an IT network. A user-and-entity behavior analytics system (UEBA) uses event logs to create models of an entity's behavior in an IT network and determine when an enmity's behavior deviates from the norm. An example of a UEBA cybersecurity monitoring system is described in U.S. Pat. No. 9,798,883 issued on Oct. 24, 2017 and titled “System, Method, and Computer Program for Detecting and Assessing Security Risks in a Network,” the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein.
Log formats can vary significantly across different IT vendors. For example, the following tokens may all relate to a user ID:
The log data must be normalized before it can be used by a cybersecurity system or other system that uses log data from multiple sources. As a result, systems that use a variety of event logs rely on parsers that extract values or key/value pairs from raw event logs and normalize the data (i.e., for each log, the parser generates a message with normalized fields and format for the log data). For example, parsers could normalize the above example tokens as follows:
Parsers are created manually, and this is a time-consuming process. Companies that process raw event logs from numerous sources often employ large teams that are dedicated to creating parsers. Therefore, there is a demand for a more automated method for creating parsers that normalize log data.
The present disclosure describes a system, method, and computer program for identifying log groups in need of a parser and for automatically creating a parser for a log group. A parser-creation system loads a plurality of logs and analyzes each log to determine whether the log matches conditions for an existing parser. If the log matches the conditions for an existing parser, the system associates the log with the applicable parser.
The system tokenizes logs that do not satisfy conditions for an existing parser, and groups logs based on token patterns. The system displays the log groups in a user interface and enables a user to select a log group for parser creation. The system also enables a user to associate a vendor and event type with the log group.
In response to the system receiving a user selection of a log group and the associated vendor and event type, the system begins the automated parser creation process. The system creates conditions for the parser based on literals common to each log in the group. This will enable the system to identify future logs that should be associated with this parser.
The system obtains the tokens (i.e., values and key/value pairs) from the log group and identifies a plurality of normalized fields that correspond to tokens in the log group. The system then maps each of the identified normalized field to a regular expression and an example token from the log group. The system also identifies any required fields for the parser based on the event type.
The system provides a user interface that enables the user to view the mapping of identified normalized fields to regular expressions and example tokens. The system also displays an indication of which of the identified normalized fields in the mapping are required for the parser. Moreover, if there are any required fields for the parser that are not included in the mapping, these required fields are also displayed in the user interface.
The system enables a user to modify and add to the mapping of identified normalized fields to regular expressions and example tokens. In response to a user confirming the mapping, the system creates a parser for the log group based on the mappings. The system associates the parser with a vendor and event type, as well as the conditions created for the parser.
In certain embodiments, the system identifies the normalized fields for the parser by comparing the tokens to a number of knowledgebases. The system compares each of the tokens to a first knowledgebase of regular expressions associated with normalized fields based on existing parsers accessible to the system. In response to a token satisfying one of the regular expressions in the first knowledgebase, the system determines that the token corresponds to the normalized field associated with the satisfied regular expression.
For each token that does not satisfy one of the known regular expressions in the first knowledgebase, the system ascertains whether the token includes (1) a key in a second knowledgebase of key names known to be associated with normalized fields used by the system, or (2) a value that satisfy a regular expression for a value type in a third knowledgebase of regular expressions for value types known to be associated with normalized fields used by the system. In response to the token including a key or a value type associated with a normalized field used by the system, the system concludes that the token corresponds to said normalized field.
In certain embodiments, if a token corresponds to a regular expression in one of the knowledgebases, then the normalized fields associated with the token is mapped to the regular expression satisfied by the token. Otherwise, the system autogenerates a regular expression for the token and maps the normalized field associated with the token with the generated regular expression. In addition, the system increases it knowledge by adding new normalized field-to-regular expression mappings to the first knowledgebase.
The present disclosure describes a system, method, and computer program for identifying log groups in need of a parser and for automatically creating a parser for a log group. Specifically, the disclosure relates to a system that groups logs that do not satisfy conditions for an existing parser, enables a user to select a log group for parser creation, and automatically creates a parser for the selected log group. In creating a parser, the system extracts values and key/value pairs from the log group and identifies the corresponding normalized output fields and regular expressions for the values and key-value pairs. The method is performed by a computer system, referred to herein as “the system” or the “parser-creation system.” In one embodiment, the parsers created by the system are used by a cybersecurity system to parse logs and normalize the information in logs generated by various systems within an IT network.
A method for identifying log groups in need of a parser and for automatically creating a parser for a selected log group is described below with respect to
1. Grouping Logs and Enabling a User to Select a Log Group for Parser Creation Referring to
The system then proceeds to group logs that do not satisfy the conditions of an existing parser. To do so, the system first tokenizes the logs (step 125). Tokens are key-value pairs or values in the logs, and tokenizing a log means identifying the key-value pairs and/or values in the log. In one embodiment, tokenizing a log comprises ascertaining whether the log has a known log format. If so, the system removes any header and tokenizes the log in accordance with the known log format. If not, the system tokenizes the log by identifying the delimiters and the key-value pairs format.
The system then groups the logs based on token patterns (step 130). In one embodiment, logs whose tokens overlap by 50% or more are grouped together. The result of the grouping is that logs from the same vendor and for the same event type are in the same group.
The system displays the log groups in a user interface and enables the user to select a log group for parser-creation (steps 135, 140). In response to receiving a user selection of a log group, the system also enables the user to select a vendor and event type for the log group (steps 145, 150). For example, the system may first display a list of vendors known to provide IT-related logs, and, in response to a user selecting a vendor, the system displays the type of events for which the vendor is known to generate logs and enables the user to choose one of the event types.
2. Creating Conditions for a Parser for a Selected Log Group
In response to the system receiving a user selection of a log group and the associated vendor and event type, the system begins the automated parser creation process. The system creates conditions for the parser based on literals common to each log in the group (step 155). This will enable the system to identify future logs that should be associated with this parser.
3. Identifying Required Normalized Fields for the Parser
For logs meeting the conditions for the parser, the parser must be able to parse the logs for any output fields required for the associated event by the cybersecurity or other system that will be using the log data. Consequently, the parser-creation system identifies any required normalized fields for the parser based on the event type associated with the parser (step 160). Normalized fields are the keys in the output messages that will be generated by the parser being created. In other words, they are the output fields in the messages generated by the parser.
In one embodiment, the system identifies the required fields by creating a superset of normalized fields extracted in all pre-existing parsers accessible to the system for the same event type and then identifying the normalized fields in the superset that are common to all the preexisting parsers for the same event type. In an alternate embodiment, each event type is associated with a list of required normalized fields for the event type.
4. Identifying the Normalized Fields that Correspond to Tokens in the Log Group
The system identifies the tokens in the log group (step 165). As discussed above, each log in the group was previously tokenized, and identifying the tokens for the log group comprises aggregating the tokens of the individual logs in the log group.
The system then identifies a plurality of normalized fields that correspond to tokens in the log group (step 170). The identified normalized fields may include both required fields and optional fields for the event type. Identifying the normalized fields that correspond to the tokens comprises comparing the tokens to: (1) regular expressions in existing parsers accessible to the system, (2) regular expressions for value types associated with normalized fields in the system, and (3) a list of keys in key-value pairs associated with normalized fields in the system.
The system determines whether the token satisfies a regular expression in the first knowledgebase (i.e., a regular expression used in an existing parser) (step 230). In response to the token satisfying a regular expression in the first knowledgebase, the system determines that the token corresponds to the normalized field to which the satisfied regular expression is mapped in the first knowledgebase (step 240).
If the token does not satisfy a regular expression in the first knowledgebase, the system determines whether the token includes a key known to be associated with a normalized field. Specifically, the system compares the token to a second knowledgebase of token keys mapped to normalized fields (step 245). In certain embodiments, the second knowledgebase is based on industry/expert knowledge of keys known to correspond to normalized fields. In response to determining that a key in the token matches a key in the second knowledgebase, the system concludes that the token corresponds to the normalized field associated with the matching key in the second knowledgebase (steps 250, 260).
If the token neither satisfies a regular expression in the first knowledgebase, nor matches a key in the second knowledgebase, the system determines whether the token satisfies a regular expression for a value type associated with normalized fields in the system. Specifically, the system compares the token to a third knowledgebase of regular expressions for value types associated with normalized fields (step 265). In certain embodiments, the third knowledgebase is based on industry/expert knowledge of value types known to correspond to normalized fields. In response to determining that the token satisfies a regular expression in the third knowledgebase for a value type, the system concludes that the token corresponds to the normalized field associated with the value type (steps 270, 275).
If the token neither satisfies a regular expression in the first or third knowledgebases, nor includes a key in the second knowledgebase, the system does not match the token to a normalized field at this time (step 280). The method repeats until all the tokens in the log group have been processed (steps 285, 215). If a normalized field is identified from a token, then the system may map the identified normalized field to a regular expression, as discussed below, before proceeding to process the next token in step 215.
In certain embodiments, the first, second, and third knowledgebases are a suite of libraries. They may be separate libraries or subsections of the same library.
5. Mapping the Identified Normalized Fields to Regular Expressions and Example Tokens
The system maps each of the identified normalized fields to a regular expression (step 175). More specifically, each normalized field identified in step 160 is mapped to a regular expression for the token corresponding to the field. The system also maps each of the identified normalized fields to an example token (from the log group) corresponding to the normalized field. The example token may be selected in a number of ways. For example, the system may randomly select the token from a group of tokens corresponding to the normalized field, or it may select the first token on a list of tokens (from the log group) corresponding to the normalized field.
6. Enabling User to Edit Normalized Fields and Regular Expressions Identified for the Log Group
The system provides a user interface that enables the user to view the mapping of identified normalized fields to regular expressions and example tokens (step 180). The system also displays an indication of which of the identified normalized fields are required for the parser. For example, required fields may be denoted with a symbol or other graphic feature. Moreover, if there are any required fields for the parser that are not included in the mapping, these required fields are also displayed in the user interface.
In certain embodiments, the system also provides a user interface in which a user can view a list of all the tokens for the log group and the normalized fields matched to each token. Such views allow a user to confirm that matchings are correct, as well as to see any tokens from the log group not matched to a normalized field. The system may also enable a user to review and edit conditions for the log group.
The system enables the user to edit the mapping of identified normalized fields to regular expressions and example tokens (step 185). This includes being able to modify the mappings for identified normalized fields, being able to add regular expressions and example tokens for unmatched required fields, and being able to add normalized fields and regular expressions to unmatched tokens.
7. Creating a Parser
The user interface includes a call-to-action that enables a user to indicate that the displayed normalized fields and corresponding regular expressions are acceptable and to initiate the final parser creation step. For example, the user interface may include a “create parser” button or the like. In response to a user selecting the call-to-action, the system creates a parser for the log group based on the mapping of the normalized fields to regular expressions (as modified by the user if applicable) (step 190). The system associates the created parser with the vendor and event type selected for the log group. Also, the system associates the parser with the conditions for the log group.
8. Example Software Architecture
A log loader module 420 loads raw event logs 410 into the system 400. The log grouper module 420 groups logs as described above, and a parser-creation module 430 creates a parser for a selected group of raw logs in accordance with the methods of
8. General
The methods described herein are embodied in software and performed by one or more computer systems (each comprising one or more computing devices) executing the software. A person skilled in the art would understand that a computer system has one or more memory units, disks, or other physical, computer-readable storage media for storing software instructions, as well as one or more processors for executing the software instructions. All illustrated screen shots and user interfaces are examples and not limiting of the invention.
As will be understood by those familiar with the art, the invention may be embodied in other specific forms without departing from the spirit or essential characteristics thereof. Accordingly, the above disclosure is intended to be illustrative, but not limiting, of the scope of the invention, which is set forth in the following claims.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 62/856,903 filed on Jun. 4, 2019, and titled “System, Method, and Computer Program for Automatically Creating a Parser for Raw Event Logs,” the contents of which are incorporated by reference herein as if fully disclosed herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5941947 | Brown et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
6223985 | DeLude | May 2001 | B1 |
6594481 | Johnson et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
7181768 | Ghosh et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7624277 | Simard et al. | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7668776 | Ahles | Feb 2010 | B1 |
8326788 | Allen et al. | Dec 2012 | B2 |
8443443 | Nordstrom et al. | May 2013 | B2 |
8479302 | Lin | Jul 2013 | B1 |
8484230 | Harnett | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8539088 | Zheng | Sep 2013 | B2 |
8583781 | Raleigh | Nov 2013 | B2 |
8606913 | Lin | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8676273 | Fujisake | Mar 2014 | B1 |
8850570 | Ramzan | Sep 2014 | B1 |
8881289 | Basavapatna et al. | Nov 2014 | B2 |
9055093 | Borders | Jun 2015 | B2 |
9081958 | Ramzan et al. | Jul 2015 | B2 |
9185095 | Moritz et al. | Nov 2015 | B1 |
9189623 | Lin et al. | Nov 2015 | B1 |
9202052 | Fang et al. | Dec 2015 | B1 |
9680938 | Gil et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
9690938 | Saxe et al. | Jun 2017 | B1 |
9692765 | Choi et al. | Jun 2017 | B2 |
9760240 | Maheshwari et al. | Sep 2017 | B2 |
9779253 | Mahaffey et al. | Oct 2017 | B2 |
9798883 | Gil et al. | Oct 2017 | B1 |
9843596 | Averbuch et al. | Dec 2017 | B1 |
9898604 | Fang et al. | Feb 2018 | B2 |
10063582 | Feng et al. | Aug 2018 | B1 |
10095871 | Gil et al. | Oct 2018 | B2 |
10178108 | Lin et al. | Jan 2019 | B1 |
10354015 | Kalchbrenner et al. | Jul 2019 | B2 |
10397272 | Bruss et al. | Aug 2019 | B1 |
10419470 | Segev et al. | Sep 2019 | B1 |
10445311 | Saurabh | Oct 2019 | B1 |
10467631 | Dhurandhar et al. | Nov 2019 | B2 |
10474828 | Gil et al. | Nov 2019 | B2 |
10496815 | Steiman et al. | Dec 2019 | B1 |
10621343 | Maciejak et al. | Apr 2020 | B1 |
10645109 | Lin et al. | May 2020 | B1 |
10685293 | Heimann et al. | Jun 2020 | B1 |
10803183 | Gil et al. | Oct 2020 | B2 |
10819724 | Amiri et al. | Oct 2020 | B2 |
10841338 | Lin et al. | Nov 2020 | B1 |
10887325 | Lin et al. | Jan 2021 | B1 |
10944777 | Lin et al. | Mar 2021 | B2 |
11017173 | Lu et al. | May 2021 | B1 |
11080483 | Islam et al. | Aug 2021 | B1 |
11080591 | van den Oord et al. | Aug 2021 | B2 |
11140167 | Lin et al. | Oct 2021 | B1 |
11178168 | Lin et al. | Nov 2021 | B1 |
11245716 | Roelofs et al. | Feb 2022 | B2 |
20020107926 | Lee | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20030147512 | Abburi | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040073569 | Knott et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20060090198 | Aaron | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20070156771 | Hurley et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070282778 | Chan et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080028467 | Kommareddy et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080040802 | Pierson et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080170690 | Tysowski | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080262990 | Kapoor et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080301780 | Ellison et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090144095 | Shahi et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090171752 | Galvin et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
20090293121 | Bigus et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100125911 | Bhaskaran | May 2010 | A1 |
20100191763 | Wu | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100269175 | Stolfo et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20100284282 | Golic | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110167495 | Antonakakis et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20120278021 | Lin et al. | Nov 2012 | A1 |
20120316835 | Maeda et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120316981 | Hoover et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130080631 | Lin | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130117554 | Ylonen | May 2013 | A1 |
20130197998 | Buhrmann et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130227643 | Mccoog et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130268260 | Lundberg | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130305357 | Ayyagari et al. | Nov 2013 | A1 |
20130340028 | Rajagopal et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140007238 | Magee | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140090058 | Ward et al. | Mar 2014 | A1 |
20140101759 | Antonakakis et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140315519 | Nielsen | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20150026027 | Priess et al. | Jan 2015 | A1 |
20150039543 | Athmanathan et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150046969 | Abuelsaad et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150121503 | Xiong | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150205944 | Turgeman | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150215325 | Ogawa | Jul 2015 | A1 |
20150339477 | Abrams et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150341379 | Lefebvre et al. | Nov 2015 | A1 |
20150363691 | Gocek et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160005044 | Moss et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160021117 | Harmon et al. | Jan 2016 | A1 |
20160063397 | Ylipaavalniemi et al. | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160292592 | Patthak | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160306965 | Iyer et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160364427 | Wedgeworth, III | Dec 2016 | A1 |
20170019506 | Lee et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
20170024135 | Christodorescu et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
20170127016 | Yu et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20170155652 | Most et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170161451 | Weinstein et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170178026 | Thomas | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170213025 | Srivastav et al. | Jul 2017 | A1 |
20170236081 | Grady Smith et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170264679 | Chen et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170318034 | Holland et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170323636 | Xiao et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20180004961 | Gil et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180048530 | Nikitaki et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180063168 | Sofka | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180069893 | Amit et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180075343 | van den Oord et al. | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180089304 | Vizer | Mar 2018 | A1 |
20180097822 | Huang et al. | Apr 2018 | A1 |
20180144139 | Cheng et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180157963 | Salti et al. | Jun 2018 | A1 |
20180165554 | Zhang et al. | Jun 2018 | A1 |
20180190280 | Cui et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180234443 | Wolkov et al. | Aug 2018 | A1 |
20180248895 | Watson et al. | Aug 2018 | A1 |
20180285340 | Murphy et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20180288063 | Koottayi et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20180288086 | Amiri et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20180307994 | Cheng et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20180322368 | Zhang et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20190014149 | Cleveland et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190028496 | Fenoglio et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190034641 | Gil et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190066185 | More et al. | Feb 2019 | A1 |
20190080225 | Agarwal | Mar 2019 | A1 |
20190089721 | Pereira et al. | Mar 2019 | A1 |
20190103091 | Chen | Apr 2019 | A1 |
20190114419 | Chistyakov et al. | Apr 2019 | A1 |
20190124045 | Zong et al. | Apr 2019 | A1 |
20190132629 | Kendrick | May 2019 | A1 |
20190149565 | Hagi et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190182280 | La Marca et al. | Jun 2019 | A1 |
20190205750 | Zheng et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
20190213247 | Pala et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
20190244603 | Angkititrakul et al. | Aug 2019 | A1 |
20190303703 | Kumar et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20190318100 | Bhatia et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20190334784 | Kvernvik et al. | Oct 2019 | A1 |
20190349400 | Bruss et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20190378051 | Widmann et al. | Dec 2019 | A1 |
20200021607 | Muddu et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200021620 | Purathepparambil et al. | Jan 2020 | A1 |
20200082098 | Gil et al. | Mar 2020 | A1 |
20200228557 | Lin et al. | Jul 2020 | A1 |
20200302118 | Cheng et al. | Sep 2020 | A1 |
20200327886 | Shalaby et al. | Oct 2020 | A1 |
20210089884 | Macready et al. | Mar 2021 | A1 |
20210125050 | Wang | Apr 2021 | A1 |
20210182612 | Zeng et al. | Jun 2021 | A1 |
20210232768 | Ling et al. | Jul 2021 | A1 |
20220006814 | Lin et al. | Jan 2022 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
Bahnsen, Alejandro Correa “Classifying Phishing URLs Using Recurrent Neural Networks”, IEEE 2017. |
Chen, Jinghui, et al., “Outlier Detection with Autoencoder Ensembles”, Proceedings of the 2017 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, pp. 90-98. |
Cooley, R., et al., “Web Mining: Information and Pattern Discovery on the World Wide Web”, Proceedings Ninth IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, Nov. 3-8, 1997, pp. 558-567. |
DatumBox Blog, “Machine Learning Tutorial: The Naïve Bayes Text Classifier”, DatumBox Machine Learning Blog and Software Development News, Jan. 2014, pp. 1-11. |
Freeman, David, et al., “Who are you? A Statistical Approach to Measuring User Authenticity”, NDSS, Feb. 2016, pp. 1-15. |
Goh, Jonathan et al., “Anomaly Detection in Cyber Physical Systems using Recurrent Neural Networks”, IEEE 2017. |
Ioannidis, Yannis, “The History of Histograms (abridged)”, Proceedings of the 29th VLDB Conference (2003), pp. 1-12. |
Kim, Jihyun et al., “Long Short Term Memory Recurrent Neural Network Classifier for Intrusion Detection”, IEEE 2016. |
Malik, Hassan, et al., “Automatic Training Data Cleaning for Text Classification”, 11th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Workshops, 2011, pp. 442-449. |
Poh, Norman, et al., “EER of Fixed and Trainable Fusion Classifiers: A Theoretical Study with Application to Biometric Authentication Tasks”, Multiple Classifier Systems, MCS 2005, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 3541, pp. 1-11. |
Taylor, Adrian et al., “Anomaly Detection in Automobile Control Network Data with Long Short-Term Memory Networks”, IEEE 2016. |
Taylor, Adrian “Anomaly-Based Detection of Malicious Activity in In-Vehicle Networks”, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ottawa 2017. |
Wang, Alex Hai, “Don't Follow Me Spam Detection in Twitter”, International Conference on Security and Cryptography, 2010, pp. 1-10. |
Wang, Shuhao et al., “Session-Based Fraud Detection in Online E-Commerce Transactions Using Recurrent Neural Networks”, 2017. |
Zhang, Ke et al., “Automated IT System Failue Prediction: A Deep Learning Approach”, IEEE 2016. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62856903 | Jun 2019 | US |