MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064344480 · doi:10.5430/air.v1n2p75

A Bayesian Network approach to diagnosing the root cause of failure from Trouble Tickets

2012· article· en· W2064344480 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
F. Velasco

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Intelligence Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayesian networkScope (computer science)HierarchyComputer scienceRoot causeContext (archaeology)Root cause analysisElement (criminal law)Root (linguistics)Network elementNetwork monitoringDistributed computingComputer securityComputer networkArtificial intelligenceReliability engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Telecommunications networks comprise elements of very different types that work together to provide services. Quite often, hardware failures are interrelated and it is hard for technicians specialized in specific hardware to find out these relationships. In this context, Bayesian Networks (BN) provide a good and flexible solution because they allow us to model the causal relationships between element failures and infer information from existing evidence. The goal is that network technicians can be informed of the real scope of failures and the probable existence of root problems, thus optimizing resources and reducing recovery time. Besides, with this approach a real element hierarchy can be built, allowing the discovery of hidden dependencies between elements. The outcome of this work has been the development of a rooting module attached to an incident management system (trouble ticketing system, TT).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial Intelligence ResearchSame topicSoftware System Performance and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207