Skip to content
AI Atlas
PaperActive

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

arxiv.org/abs/2609.09766

quality89

Updated 8 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026

paper_01M294G6CFRPSTG3Q2XPQJPC34

Published
11 Sept 2026
T1 · 8 h ago
arXiv
2609.09766
T1 · 8 h ago
Category
cs.CL
T1 · 8 h ago

As of

Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.

Claim history

9 claims · 9 properties

Official pageofficial_url1

Claim history for Official page
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09766currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Abstractabstract1

Claim history for Abstract
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
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.currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Arxiv announce typearxiv_announce_type1

Claim history for Arxiv announce type
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
replacecurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

arXiv idarxiv_id1

Claim history for arXiv id
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
2609.09766currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Authorsauthors1

Claim history for Authors
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
Minjoo Kim, Sangjin Park, Seung Hwan ChocurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Categoriescategories1

Claim history for Categories
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
cs.CLcurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

PDFpdf_url1

Claim history for PDF
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2609.09766currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Primary categoryprimary_category1

Claim history for Primary category
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
cs.CLcurrentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Publishedpublished_at1

Claim history for Published
ValueValid from → toStatusSourceConfidenceExtractor
11 Sept 2026currentcurrentarXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1highdeterministic

Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →