arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language · · 4 min read

CARRE: Counterfactual Action Retrieval and Reason Evaluation for Explainable Churn Prescription

Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Computer Science > Computation and Language

arXiv:2609.09766 (cs)
[Submitted on 9 Sep 2026]

Title:CARRE: Counterfactual Action Retrieval and Reason Evaluation for Explainable Churn Prescription

View a PDF of the paper titled CARRE: Counterfactual Action Retrieval and Reason Evaluation for Explainable Churn Prescription, by MinJoo Kim and 2 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Churn models typically identify high-risk customers but do not specify which feasible retention action should be considered or why that action is appropriate. We present CARRE (Counterfactual Action Retrieval and Reason Evaluation), a three-stage framework that combines retrieval-augmented candidate generation, cost-aware counterfactual scoring, and large language model (LLM) reasoning. CARRE retrieves a predefined catalog of retention actions, estimates model-predicted churn-risk changes under explicit feature transformations, and generates a structured churn reason and a profile-grounded explanation for the selected action. On the IBM Telco Customer Churn dataset, CARRE achieves 79.8% greater mean model-predicted risk reduction than the plain SHAP baseline and 80.4% greater reduction than the cost-controlled SHAP+Cost baseline across 313 high-risk test cases; its cost-normalized efficiency is 10.5% higher than that of plain SHAP. On a 136-case reason-stratified evaluation sample, diagnosis-driven prompt refinement increases weak-label agreement from 79.4% to 90.4%, with no auxiliary-plan constraint violations; because the same sample was used for error diagnosis and re-evaluation, the post-refinement result is not an independent estimate of generalization. For 135 explanations generated using the pre-refinement v2 reason outputs, two cross-vendor LLM judges assign mean scores ranging from 4.02 to 5.00 out of 5, although one judge saturates on actionability, and a deterministic audit finds no contradictions among 66 verifiable profile claims. Retrieval ablations show that k=5 provides the best evaluated compromise between high candidate coverage and downstream reasoning agreement in this dataset. These results illustrate how retrieval, model-based counterfactual scoring, and language generation can be separated and jointly evaluated in a prototype churn-prescription pipeline.
Comments: 14pages, 1 figure, Accepted at Workshop on 5th End-to-End Customer Journey Optimization at the International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining
Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2609.09766 [cs.CL]
  (or arXiv:2609.09766v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.09766
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Seung Hwan Cho [view email]
[v1] Wed, 9 Sep 2026 06:08:02 UTC (1,237 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled CARRE: Counterfactual Action Retrieval and Reason Evaluation for Explainable Churn Prescription, by MinJoo Kim and 2 other authors
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source

Current browse context:

cs.CL
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:
cs

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language