MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Predictive Analytics for Customer Retention: A CatBoost Model for Churn Detection

2025· article· en· W4413181102 on OpenAlexaff
Neha Sharma, Dharmendra Parmar, Tejeshwari Chouhan, Alka Singh, Daksh Rawat

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCustomer churn and segmentation
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAnalyticsPredictive analyticsData scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Competitive marketplaces make customer retention a priority since businesses spend more on acquiring new customers than on keeping current ones. The research uses CatBoost as its algorithm because it represents a gradientboosting model that excels at processing categorical data to improve churn prediction accuracy. An analysis of the 440,834entry customer churn dataset used our team to complete thorough preprocessing alongside feature engineering and model training activities. The CatBoost model demonstrated superior performance when compared to logistic regression, random forest and XGBoost because it achieved higher accuracy levels and lower computational resources and overfitting. The examine of metrics shows outstanding success where the training accuracy matched validation accuracy at 99.89 % and 99.88 % respectively and precision scored 100 % and the F1-score achieved 99.90 %. CatBoost's powerful categorical feature abilities together with its automated hyperparameter execution maintained a validation loss at a minimal 0.71 %. This paper demonstrates why CatBoost functions well with real-life customer retention problems since it delivers tangible solutions that help companies prevent customer attrition. The research contributes to academic analysis of machine learning models along with real-world CRM strategies due to optimized predictive processes and superior accuracy achievement.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.235 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCustomer churn and segmentationFrench-language works237,207