CREST: Improving interpretability and effectiveness of troubleshooting at ericsson through criterion-Specific trouble report retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid evolution of the telecommunication industry necessitates efficient troubleshooting processes to maintain network reliability, software maintainability, and service quality. Trouble Reports (TRs), which document issues in Ericsson’s production system, play a critical role in facilitating the timely resolution of software faults. However, the complexity and volume of textual TR data present challenges for retrieval models, often leading to information loss due to the input size limitation of Large Language Models (LLMs). However, the complexity and volume of TR data, along with the presence of diverse criteria that reflect different aspects of each fault, present challenges for retrieval systems.Moreover, each TR includes distinct criteria that capture different aspects of the fault, impacting retrieval model performance. Building on prior work at Ericsson, which utilized a two-stage workflow, comprising Initial Retrieval (IR) and Re-Ranking (RR) stages, this study investigates different TR observation criteria and their impact on the performance of retrieval models. This study proposesWe propose CREST ( C riteria-specific R etrieval via E nsemble of S pecialized T R models), a criterion-driven retrieval approach that leverages specialized models for different TR fields to improve both effectiveness and interpretability, thereby enabling quicker fault resolution and supporting software maintenance.Utilizing these dedicated retrieval models, trained on specific TR criteria, the overall retrieval performance of the CREST improves. CREST utilizes specialized models trained on specific TR criteria and aggregates their outputs to capture diverse and complementary signals. This approach leads to enhanced retrieval accuracy, better calibration of predicted scores, and improved interpretability by providing relevance scores for each criterion, helping users understand why specific TRs were retrieved. Using a subset of Ericsson’s internal TRs, this research demonstrates that criterion-specific models significantly outperform a single model approach across key evaluation metrics. This highlights the importance of all targeted criteria used in this study for optimizing the performance of retrieval systems.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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".