Searching for Relevant Lessons Learned Using Hybrid Information Retrieval Classifiers: A Case Study in Software Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lessons learned (LL) repository is one of the most valuable sources of knowledge for a software organization. It can provide distinctive guidance regarding previous working solutions for historical software management problems, or former success stories to be followed. However, the unstructured format of the LL repository makes it difficult to search using general queries, which are manually inputted by project managers (PMs). For this reason, this repository may often be overlooked despite the valuable information it provides. Since the LL repository targets PMs, the search method should be domain specific rather than generic as in the case of general web searching. In previous work, we provided an automatic information retrieval based LL classifier solution. In our solution, we relied on existing project management artifacts in constructing the search query on-the-fly. In this paper, we extend our previous work by examining the impact of the hybridization of multiple LL classifiers, from our previous study, on performance. We employ two of the hybridization techniques from the literature to construct the hybrid classifiers. An industrial dataset of 212 LL records is used for validation. The results show the superiority of the hybrid classifier over the top achieving individual classifier, which reached 25%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".