Development of a Customer Churn Model for Banking Industry Based on Hard and Soft Data Fusion
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
There has been an increase in customer churn over the past few years—customers decide not to continue purchasing products or services from an organization. Customers’ data lie in two categories: soft and hard. The term “hard data” refers to the records generated by various devices and programs, including but not limited to smartphones, computers, sensors, smart meters, fleet management systems, call detail records (CDRs), and consumer bank transaction data. On the other hand, information that is subject to interpretation and viewpoint is known as “soft data.” Fusing these two types of data leads to better customer behaviour analysis. This paper uses a supervised machine learning algorithm, namely a decision tree (DT), and the change mining method to model hard data. K-means clustering, an unsupervised machine learning algorithm, is also used along with the data preprocessing techniques. This paper also considers the Dempster-Shafer theory and other steps for soft data modelling. By fusing soft and hard data, the churn rate of customers compared with each other can be calculated. Besides, the customers’ banking data are leveraged for data modelling. The results show that the banking industry will gain a more dynamic and efficient customer relationship management system by using this model.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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