Cost-Aware Abstention for LLM-Based IT Ticket Classification

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the Robot Papers editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为 VLA、具身智能、人形机器人控制、机器人操作等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

Wrong automatic routing of an IT support ticket can cost more than human triage. We evaluate cost-aware abstention as an offline, cost-conditional readiness assessment: select a routing policy on calibration data under explicit costs, then evaluate that frozen policy once on held-out test data. On a public 47,837-ticket, eight-class corpus, we compare four trained non-LLM classifiers with four large language models under zero- and few-shot prompting. Under the illustrative cost model (c_ok, c_triage, c_wrong) = (0, 1, 5), TF-IDF with logistic regression and a threshold of 0.60 selected on calibration reduces test cost from 0.763 to 0.472, a 38.1% relative reduction (paired ratio-bootstrap 95% CI [35.7%, 40.4%]), while lowering wrong routes from 15.3% to 3.5%. Frozen calibration-selected policies also beat both always-route and always-defer on held-out test data in 14 of 16 settings in a post-hoc cost-parameter analysis. The strongest prompted configuration reaches 0.477 accuracy on a stratified 1,000-ticket test subset, versus 0.879 for fine-tuned DistilBERT on the same tickets. Isotonic lowers expected calibration error without reliably improving discrimination: GPT-4o-mini few-shot has one confidence value before and after recalibration and correctness AUROC 0.500. We therefore report correctness AUROC and tie-aware risk-coverage area alongside ECE. At the analytically derived break-even probability 0.80, seven prompted configurations defer all tickets; Haiku few-shot routes only 19/1,000. An LLM-only agreement control and margin/entropy rejection baselines further separate calibration from discrimination. The findings are scoped to this dataset, prompt design, model endpoints, and illustrative costs; the work is an evaluation framework, not a new abstention algorithm or universal deployment certification.

Links and sources

• Official / arXiv page
• PDF from original source

Comments