Reasoning Language Models for Root Cause Analysis in 5G Wireless Networks

Antonio De Domenico; Fadhel Ayed; Haozhe Zhang; Merouane Debbah; Mohamed Sana; Nicola Piovesan; Yibin Kang

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 16 references

Reasoning Language Models for Root Cause Analysis in 5G Wireless Networks

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Small, domain-tuned language models can diagnose 5G faults at over 95% accuracy, outperforming far larger general reasoning models.

desk verdict TeleLogs is a genuinely useful benchmark, but the paper's root-cause taxonomy is internally inconsistent and the headline numbers don't line up between text and table. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.21974 v1 pith:27CWJ25P submitted 2025-07-29 cs.AI cs.NI

Mohamed Sana , Nicola Piovesan , Antonio De Domenico , Yibin Kang , Haozhe Zhang , Merouane Debbah , Fadhel Ayed This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.AIcs.NI

keywords rootcauseanalysis5Gnetworkslargelanguagemodelsreasoningsupervisedfine-tuningreinforcementlearningTeleLogsdatasetnetworktroubleshooting

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Root cause analysis in 5G networks is usually done by expert-crafted fault trees or machine-learning classifiers that are hard to interpret. This paper argues that a small open language model can be turned into an accurate, explainable diagnostician through a two-stage recipe: supervised fine-tuning on structured reasoning traces, then reinforcement learning that rewards correct diagnoses. To support this, the authors build and release TeleLogs, a synthetic drive-test dataset with eight root-cause classes and expert-style step-by-step explanations. Their fine-tuned 1.5B model reaches 87.56% pass@1 and their 32B model 95.86% on TeleLogs, far above general-purpose reasoning baselines, and both keep most of the gain on randomized variants. If the synthetic causal rules reflect real networks, the result would make lightweight LLM-based RCA practical for network operation teams.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are two. First, TeleLogs: a synthetic drive-test dataset built from realistic engineering parameters and user-plane measurements, with eight deterministic root causes and ground-truth labels generated by a simulator. Second, the two-stage training pipeline: supervised fine-tuning on aggregated multi-agent chain-of-thought traces, where an aggregator selects majority-vote-correct trajectories and rewrites them into a shorter structured RCA format, followed by GRPO reinforcement learning with a binary exact-match reward to sharpen the policy. The interaction between these two carries the argument: the structured traces give the model a domain-grounded prior, and the RL stage selects for correct causal chains rather than fluent text.

What would settle it

Collect a held-out set of real-world 5G drive-test incidents with independently verified root causes and evaluate Qwen2.5-RCA-32B with the same pass@1 protocol; if accuracy on these real logs is substantially below the 95.86% reported on TeleLogs, the simulator is not a faithful proxy and the central claim fails. A quicker check: perturb each TeleLogs threshold, such as the 40 km/h speed cutoff or the 160 RB cutoff, and see whether accuracy collapses on cases near the boundary, which would show the model keys on exact rule constants rather than robust causal structure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that general reasoning LLMs struggle at structured telecom RCA, but a domain-adapted two-stage fine-tuning procedure, supervised fine-tuning followed by GRPO-based reinforcement learning, closes the gap dramatically. The authors formulate RCA as posterior inference over a fixed set of eight root causes given engineering parameters, drive-test observations, and a symptom; they then train a policy that outputs both a diagnosis and a structured explanation. The SFT stage uses a multi-agent pipeline of two reasoning agents plus an aggregator that compresses successful chains of thought into a compact template, and the RL stage optimizes a binary correctness reward with group relative policy optimization. On TeleLogs, the trained Qwen2.5-RCA-32B achieves 95.86% pass@1 and 96.18% maj@4, versus 33.77% for Qwen3-32B and 29.42% for DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B; the 1.5B model still reaches 87.56% pass@1. The randomized variant results are taken as evidence that the models learn the underlying diagnostic rules rather than surface-position shortcuts.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that TeleLogs' simulator-generated causal rules, such as speed above 40 km/h, coverage distance beyond 1 km, PCI mod 30 conflicts, and average scheduled RBs below 160, faithfully capture how faults produce symptoms in real 5G networks, so that high accuracy on TeleLogs would transfer to operational troubleshooting.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The two-stage SFT+RL recipe lifts every model scale tested: 1.5B, 7B, and 32B all jump from below 20% to above 80% pass@1 on TeleLogs.
A 1.5B model fine-tuned this way outperforms much larger open reasoning models, suggesting that compute for RCA can be spent on training data quality rather than model scale.
Performance on randomized test variants, 93.23% pass@1 for the 32B model, indicates the trained models are not relying on position-based heuristics or memorized answer patterns.
TeleLogs, released publicly, provides a reproducible benchmark for future RCA research with structured step-by-step explanations.
The same methodology could be applied to other domains where structured diagnostic reasoning and interpretable explanations are required, such as cloud infrastructure or industrial fault management.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper: a natural next experiment is to apply the same two-stage recipe to real operator drive-test logs and compare pass@1, which would test whether the simulator's deterministic thresholds generalize to noisy field data.
Because the reward is binary exact match, the method rewards the final label, not the factual fidelity of the explanation; one could extend the reward to penalize reasoning steps that contradict the given KPIs, which might transfer better to multi-symptom faults.
The eight root causes are not mutually exclusive in reality, as speed-induced handover and misconfigured thresholds can co-occur; extending to multi-label RCA would likely require a structured output space rather than a single boxed answer.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Worth reading for the dataset. TeleLogs is a new, public, simulated 5G troubleshooting benchmark with ground-truth labels, and that alone is a service to the community. The empirical result—SFT followed by GRPO takes a 1.5B model from ~11% to ~87% pass@1 and a 32B model to ~96%—is striking and, as far as I can tell, real on their test set. The multi-agent trace generation with a majority-vote aggregator is a sensible way to produce clean CoT data, and the randomized test variant is a reasonable robustness check.

The soft spots are not trivial. First, the stress-test note is correct: the root-cause taxonomy in Section IV-D does not match the taxonomy used in the actual prompts and evaluation labels. In the formal definition c3 is 'serving cell coverage distance exceeds 1 km' and c7 is 'misconfigured handover thresholds', but the Figure 8 prompt has C3 as 'a neighboring cell provides higher throughput' and C7 as 'test vehicle speed exceeds 40 km/h'. The example trace in Figure 7 uses C3 in the prompt sense and even rejects the coverage-distance cause. So the reported pass@1 numbers are computed against ground-truth labels whose semantics differ from the problem formulation. That is a load-bearing inconsistency. It doesn't necessarily destroy the empirical comparison—the baselines were scored on the same labels—but the paper's formal claim is simply not what was evaluated.

Second, the numbers don't agree internally: Section VI-A reports 80.41% for Qwen2.5-RCA-1.5B while Table III reports 87.56% pass@1 for the same model. The 80.41 figure is consistent with the '7x gain' claim, so it's probably Figure 6's number, but the paper never reconciles the two. With no error bars or variance reported, it's hard to tell if the gap matters or is metric noise.

Those two issues need fixing before I'd rely on the accuracy claims. The method itself is a standard SFT+GRPO recipe, and the authors don't overclaim novelty there. The generalization claim is to randomized test variants, not to real networks, and the paper does disclose the synthetic nature.

Who gets value: network operations researchers who want a benchmark, and LLM post-training people interested in a new domain application. It deserves peer review, but a serious referee should require the taxonomy and numbers to be corrected.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TeleLogs, a synthetic 5G drive-test dataset for root cause analysis (RCA), and proposes a two-stage fine-tuning recipe for reasoning LLMs: supervised fine-tuning (SFT) on structured traces generated by a multi-agent pipeline, followed by GRPO-based reinforcement learning (RL). The authors report that their fine-tuned Qwen2.5 models, from 1.5B to 32B parameters, achieve 87.56% to 95.86% pass@1 on TeleLogs, far exceeding open reasoning baselines such as Qwen3-32B and DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Llama-70B. They also report robustness on a randomized version of the test set that shuffles identifiers and option order.

Significance. If the results are correctly measured, the paper demonstrates a practically useful result: a small, domain-adapted LLM can outperform much larger general-purpose reasoning models on a structured RCA benchmark. The public release of TeleLogs is a valuable contribution, and the two-stage SFT+RL recipe is clearly described and reproducible in principle. However, the significance is currently undercut by an internal inconsistency between the formal root-cause taxonomy and the taxonomy actually used in the prompts, and by an unexplained discrepancy in the reported accuracy for the 1.5B model. The generalization claim is also weaker than stated because the randomized test set does not create new feature-label pairs.

major comments (3)

[§IV-D vs. Figures 7–8] The root-cause taxonomy used to score TeleLogs differs from the formal definition in §IV-D. There, c3 is defined as 'the serving cell coverage distance exceeds 1 km' and c7 as 'misconfigured handover thresholds', but the prompt in Figure 8 lists C3 as 'A neighboring cell provides higher throughput' and C7 as 'Test vehicle speed exceeds 40 km/h', and omits misconfigured handover thresholds entirely. Figure 7's example trace concludes C3 = 'the neighbor cell provides significantly higher throughput', a label that has no counterpart in the formal schema; under the formal definition C3 would mean coverage distance > 1 km, which the trace itself rejects ('Serving cell distance is minimal < 100m'). The evaluation labels are therefore not those stated in the problem formulation and contributions. Either the formal root-cause set or the evaluation labels must be corrected before the reported accuracies can be interpreted.
[§VI-A and Table III] For Qwen2.5-RCA-1.5B, Section VI-A reports an 'accuracy of 80.41%' for the proposed SFT+RL method, while Table III reports pass@1 = 87.56% and maj@4 = 87.73% for the same model. The text does not define the accuracy metric used in Figure 6, and no variance or confidence intervals are reported anywhere. This inconsistency is load-bearing because the central comparison of SFT+RL against SFT alone and RL alone is quantified with these numbers. Please correct the discrepancy and report per-run or per-seed variability.
[§VI-C] The randomized test set is described as altering 'root cause identifiers, table order, and other superficial cues', but it does not create new network configurations or unseen feature-label pairs. High performance on such a variant therefore does not establish generalization to novel fault scenarios, and it cannot distinguish causal reasoning from memorization of feature combinations. The claim of 'strong generalization to randomized test variants' should either be softened or supported with a held-out set drawn from different simulator configurations.

minor comments (4)

[§II] Typo: 'graph neural networkss' should read 'graph neural networks'.
[§VI] The definition of pass@1 is nonstandard: pass@1 usually denotes success on a single sampled response, while here it is computed by averaging over N=4 responses per test instance. Please clarify whether the reported numbers also hold for a single decoding and state the sampling temperature used.
[§VI-B] The sentence 'which is over 2.5× higher than the SoTA reasoning models even the DeepSeek R1 Distill-Llama-70B' is grammatically unclear, and the comparison is between a fine-tuned model and zero-shot baselines rather than models trained on the same data.
[§IV-C] The formal symptom definition uses a throughput threshold of 600 Mbps, but the example in Figure 8 includes a timestamp with throughput exactly 600.0 Mbps; please confirm whether the symptom is defined as strictly below or below or equal to the threshold.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reasoning: the training rewards and evaluation labels are exogenous simulator ground truth, not the model's own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. TeleLogs is a synthetic benchmark (Section IV) whose ground-truth root causes are generated by a drive-test simulator, and each training sample is a pair (q, c) where c is the simulator's label (Section V). The SFT data are produced by LLM agents but only "keeping the good trajectories with σ(τ_i)=c_i" (Eq. 5 context), so the supervision signal is the simulator label, not the model's own preference. The RL stage uses the reward R(τ,c)=1(σ(τ)=c) (Eq. 3), again an external correctness check against c. Reported pass@1 and maj@4 are computed on a held-out TeleLogs test split (Section VI), so they are genuine generalization numbers on the same synthetic distribution rather than fitted quantities renamed as predictions. The paper contains no load-bearing self-citation chain and no uniqueness argument imported from the authors' prior work. The one substantive defect is an internal-consistency issue, not circularity: Section IV-D defines c3 as "serving cell coverage distance exceeds 1 km," but Figure 8's prompt defines C3 as "A neighboring cell provides higher throughput," and Figure 7's trace concludes C3 on that basis. This means the 87.56% and 95.86% figures may not measure the formally stated root-cause set, but the labels are still exogenous to the trained models, so the defect does not make the derivation circular. Similarly, the randomized test variants shuffle identifiers and table order while preserving feature-label pairs; that weakens the causal-generalization claim but is an experimental-design limitation, not a circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are either dataset-definition thresholds or standard training hyperparameters. The load-bearing assumptions are domain-level: the simulator's fidelity and the sufficiency of the 8 root causes. The reward function's focus on final-answer correctness is an acknowledged simplification.

free parameters (7)

Symptom throughput threshold = 600 Mbps
Defines the observed symptom in every TeleLogs sample; hand-chosen as a coverage criterion, affects task difficulty.
C7 speed threshold = 40 km/h
One of the 8 root cause definitions; hand-chosen in the simulator.
C8 PRB threshold = 160
Root cause definition: 'average scheduled RBs are below 160'; hand-chosen in the simulator.
C2 coverage distance threshold = 1 km
Root cause definition: 'coverage distance exceeds 1 km'; hand-chosen in the simulator.
RL clipping epsilon = 0.2
Hyperparameter for GRPO, set empirically in Section VI; not central but affects training.
Learning rate = 1e-6
Chosen in Section VI; not fitted to the benchmark but a hand-set hyperparameter.
Number of RL trajectories N = 8
Sampled per question during GRPO training (Section VI).

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The simulator's mapping from configurations to throughput and root causes is faithful to real 5G behavior.
Section IV claims realistic conditions but no real-network validation is provided; this is the load-bearing assumption for practical relevance.
domain assumption The 8 root causes C1-C8 are exhaustive for the simulated fault space.
Section IV-D lists only these; if other faults exist, the benchmark and models miss them.
domain assumption The reward R(tau,c)=1{sigma(tau)=c} is an adequate objective for RCA quality.
Eq. (3) reduces quality to final-answer correctness, ignoring explanation quality.
domain assumption An LLM's next-token prediction can approximate the posterior p(c|U,Yt,st).
Section V states this; it is a modeling assumption, not proven.
domain assumption Randomized test variants preserve the causal relationship between data and labels.
Section VI-C alters superficial cues; assumes no label changes.
standard math Standard probability and RL math.
Equations (2), (4), (6), and (7) rely on standard results.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Reasoning Language Models for Root Cause Analysis in 5G Wireless Networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/27CWJ25P

@misc{pith2026250721974,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Reasoning Language Models for Root Cause Analysis in 5G Wireless Networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/27CWJ25P}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.21974}
}

read the original abstract

Root Cause Analysis (RCA) in mobile networks remains a challenging task due to the need for interpretability, domain expertise, and causal reasoning. In this work, we propose a lightweight framework that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) for RCA. To do so, we introduce TeleLogs, a curated dataset of annotated troubleshooting problems designed to benchmark RCA capabilities. Our evaluation reveals that existing open-source reasoning LLMs struggle with these problems, underscoring the need for domain-specific adaptation. To address this issue, we propose a two-stage training methodology that combines supervised fine-tuning with reinforcement learning to improve the accuracy and reasoning quality of LLMs. The proposed approach fine-tunes a series of RCA models to integrate domain knowledge and generate structured, multi-step diagnostic explanations, improving both interpretability and effectiveness. Extensive experiments across multiple LLM sizes show significant performance gains over state-of-the-art reasoning and non-reasoning models, including strong generalization to randomized test variants. These results demonstrate the promise of domain-adapted, reasoning-enhanced LLMs for practical and explainable RCA in network operation and management.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.21974 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** 5G Network drive testing. particular, there remains a gap in integrating the explainability of rule-based systems with the reasoning capabilities of LLMs. III. PROBLEM OVERVIEW In this section, we formally define the RCA problem in the context of mobile networks. We describe the key network state variables and observed symptom, and formulate RCA as a probabilistic inference task. A. Problem formulation Given a set o… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** RCA Prompt template. an underlying data distribution pD. Each training sample is represented as a pair (q, c) ∼ pD, where q = T (C, U, Yt, st) is a structured prompt, specifically designed using the taskspecific template T (·) illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Data distribution before and after the aggregator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (4 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: RCA Reasoning Format. to learn a policy πθ that minimizes the following objective function: J (θ) =E(q,c)∼pD [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Performance comparison of different training method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: RCA traces. It includes data interpretation, elimination of unlikely causes, and a final conclusion pointing to the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: An example of RCA Problem. It includes a description of the RCA task, a list of potential root causes (C1-C8), domain [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

[1]

ICASSP-SPGC 2022: Root cause analysis for wireless network fault localization,

T. Zhang, Q. Chen, Y . Jiang, D. Miao, F. Yin, T. Quan, Q. Shi, and Z.-Q. Luo, “ICASSP-SPGC 2022: Root cause analysis for wireless network fault localization,” in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pp. 9301–9305, IEEE, 2022

work page 2022
[2]

Machine learning based root cause analysis for sdn network,

V . Tong, S. Souihi, H. A. Tran, and A. Mellouk, “Machine learning based root cause analysis for sdn network,” in 2021 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) , pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2021

work page 2021
[3]

Root cause analysis of network failures using machine learning and summarization techniques,

J. M. N. Gonzalez, J. A. Jimenez, J. C. D. Lopez, et al. , “Root cause analysis of network failures using machine learning and summarization techniques,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 126– 131, 2017

work page 2017
[4]

Survey on models and techniques for root-cause analysis,

M. Sol ´e, V . Munt ´es-Mulero, A. I. Rana, and G. Estrada, “Survey on models and techniques for root-cause analysis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.08546, 2017

arXiv 2017
[5]

Graph neural network based root cause analysis using multivariate time-series kpis for wireless networks,

C.-C. Yen, W. Sun, H. Purmehdi, W. Park, K. R. Deshmukh, N. Thakrar, O. Nassef, and A. Jacobs, “Graph neural network based root cause analysis using multivariate time-series kpis for wireless networks,” in IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium , pp. 1–7, 2022

work page 2022
[6]

On the use of spatial graphs for performance degradation root-cause analysis toward self-healing mobile networks,

L. Mata, M. Sousa, P. Vieira, M. P. Queluz, and A. Rodrigues, “On the use of spatial graphs for performance degradation root-cause analysis toward self-healing mobile networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 20490– 20508, 2024

work page 2024
[7]

TN-AutoRCA: Benchmark Construction and Agentic Framework for Self-Improving Alarm-Based Root Cause Analysis in Telecommunication Networks

K. Wu, Q. Yu, M. Mei, R. Liu, J. Wang, K. Zhang, Y . Bao, R. Ye, B. He, J. Liao, L. Huang, Y . Du, Z. Yang, K. Liu, Z. Song, Y . Gao, F. Tan, J. Yang, and N. Gu, “TN-AutoRCA: Benchmark Construction and Agen- tic Framework for Self-Improving Alarm-Based Root Cause Analysis in Telecommunication Networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18190v1 , 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[8]

Exploring llm-based agents for root cause analysis,

D. Roy, X. Zhang, R. Bhave, C. Bansal, P. Las-Casas, R. Fonseca, and S. Rajmohan, “Exploring llm-based agents for root cause analysis,” in Companion Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on the F oundations of Software Engineering , pp. 208–219, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 16 references

[9]

Rcagent: Cloud root cause analysis by autonomous agents with tool-augmented large language models,

Z. Wang, Z. Liu, Y . Zhang, A. Zhong, J. Wang, F. Yin, L. Fan, L. Wu, and Q. Wen, “Rcagent: Cloud root cause analysis by autonomous agents with tool-augmented large language models,” in Proceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Managemen...

2024
[10]

Flow-of-Action: SOP Enhanced LLM-Based Multi-Agent System for Root Cause Analysis,

C. Pei, Z. Wang, F. Liu, Z. Li, Y . Liu, X. He, R. Kang, T. Zhang, J. Chen, J. Li, et al. , “Flow-of-Action: SOP Enhanced LLM-Based Multi-Agent System for Root Cause Analysis,” in Companion Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 , pp. 422–431, 2025

2025
[11]

Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,

L. Ouyang, J. Wu, X. Jiang, D. Almeida, C. Wainwright, P. Mishkin, C. Zhang, S. Agarwal, K. Slama, A. Ray, et al. , “Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 35, pp. 27730–27744, 2022

2022
[12]

Sft memorizes, rl generalizes: A com- parative study of foundation model post-training,

T. Chu, Y . Zhai, J. Yang, S. Tong, S. Xie, D. Schuurmans, Q. V . Le, S. Levine, and Y . Ma, “Sft memorizes, rl generalizes: A com- parative study of foundation model post-training,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.17161, 2025

2025 arXiv
[13]

Do not think that much for 2+ 3=? on the overthinking of o1-like llms,

X. Chen, J. Xu, T. Liang, Z. He, J. Pang, D. Yu, L. Song, Q. Liu, M. Zhou, Z. Zhang, et al. , “Do not think that much for 2+ 3=? on the overthinking of o1-like llms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.21187 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[14]

Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms,

J. Schulman, F. Wolski, P. Dhariwal, A. Radford, and O. Klimov, “Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithms,” CoRR, vol. abs/1707.06347, 2017

2017 arXiv
[15]

HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Framework,

G. Sheng, C. Zhang, Z. Ye, X. Wu, W. Zhang, R. Zhang, Y . Peng, H. Lin, and C. Wu, “HybridFlow: A Flexible and Efficient RLHF Framework,” arXiv preprint arXiv: 2409.19256 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[16]

Qwen3 technical report,

A. Yang, A. Li, B. Yang, B. Zhang, B. Hui, B. Zheng, B. Yu, C. Gao, C. Huang, C. Lv, et al. , “Qwen3 technical report,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

ICASSP-SPGC 2022: Root cause analysis for wireless network fault localization,

T. Zhang, Q. Chen, Y . Jiang, D. Miao, F. Yin, T. Quan, Q. Shi, and Z.-Q. Luo, “ICASSP-SPGC 2022: Root cause analysis for wireless network fault localization,” in IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pp. 9301–9305, IEEE, 2022

work page 2022

[2] [2]

Machine learning based root cause analysis for sdn network,

V . Tong, S. Souihi, H. A. Tran, and A. Mellouk, “Machine learning based root cause analysis for sdn network,” in 2021 IEEE Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM) , pp. 1–6, IEEE, 2021

work page 2021

[3] [3]

Root cause analysis of network failures using machine learning and summarization techniques,

J. M. N. Gonzalez, J. A. Jimenez, J. C. D. Lopez, et al. , “Root cause analysis of network failures using machine learning and summarization techniques,” IEEE Communications Magazine , vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 126– 131, 2017

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Survey on models and techniques for root-cause analysis,

M. Sol ´e, V . Munt ´es-Mulero, A. I. Rana, and G. Estrada, “Survey on models and techniques for root-cause analysis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.08546, 2017

arXiv 2017

[5] [5]

Graph neural network based root cause analysis using multivariate time-series kpis for wireless networks,

C.-C. Yen, W. Sun, H. Purmehdi, W. Park, K. R. Deshmukh, N. Thakrar, O. Nassef, and A. Jacobs, “Graph neural network based root cause analysis using multivariate time-series kpis for wireless networks,” in IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium , pp. 1–7, 2022

work page 2022

[6] [6]

On the use of spatial graphs for performance degradation root-cause analysis toward self-healing mobile networks,

L. Mata, M. Sousa, P. Vieira, M. P. Queluz, and A. Rodrigues, “On the use of spatial graphs for performance degradation root-cause analysis toward self-healing mobile networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 12, pp. 20490– 20508, 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

TN-AutoRCA: Benchmark Construction and Agentic Framework for Self-Improving Alarm-Based Root Cause Analysis in Telecommunication Networks

K. Wu, Q. Yu, M. Mei, R. Liu, J. Wang, K. Zhang, Y . Bao, R. Ye, B. He, J. Liao, L. Huang, Y . Du, Z. Yang, K. Liu, Z. Song, Y . Gao, F. Tan, J. Yang, and N. Gu, “TN-AutoRCA: Benchmark Construction and Agen- tic Framework for Self-Improving Alarm-Based Root Cause Analysis in Telecommunication Networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.18190v1 , 2025

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[8] [8]

Exploring llm-based agents for root cause analysis,

D. Roy, X. Zhang, R. Bhave, C. Bansal, P. Las-Casas, R. Fonseca, and S. Rajmohan, “Exploring llm-based agents for root cause analysis,” in Companion Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on the F oundations of Software Engineering , pp. 208–219, 2024

work page 2024