Developing a Llama-Based Chatbot for CI/CD Question Answering: A Case Study at Ericsson
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents our experience developing a Llama-based chatbot for question answering about continuous integration and continuous delivery (CI/CD) at Ericsson, a multinational telecommunications company. Our chatbot is designed to handle the specificities of CI/CD documents at Ericsson, employing a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) model to enhance accuracy and relevance. Our empirical evaluation of the chatbot on industrial CI/CD-related questions indicates that an ensemble retriever, combining BM25 and embedding retrievers, yields the best performance. When evaluated against a ground truth of 72 CI/CD questions and answers at Ericsson, our most accurate chatbot configuration provides fully correct answers for 61.11% of the questions, partially correct answers for 26.39%, and incorrect answers for 12.50%. Through an error analysis of the partially correct and incorrect answers, we discuss the underlying causes of inaccuracies and provide insights for further refinement. We also reflect on lessons learned and suggest future directions for further improving our chatbot's accuracy.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it