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

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.09766v2
• Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 01:31:11 GMT
• Title: CARRE: Counterfactual Action Retrieval and Reason Evaluation for Explainable Churn Prescription
• Abstract summary: We present CARRE, a three-stage framework that combines retrieval-augmented candidate generation, cost-aware counterfactual scoring, and large language model (LLM) reasoning.<n>On the IBM Telco Customer Churn dataset, CARRE achieves 79.8% greater mean model-predicted risk reduction than the plain SHAP baseline.
• Score: 5.823033362443801
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• 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.

Related papers

• State of Thought Enables Endogenous Reasoning [48.902117018115256]
  Test-time reasoning has emerged as a major approach to improving the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We propose State of Thought, a new reasoning paradigm that enables endogenous reasoning in LLMs.<n>We show that SoT consistently improves mean-baseline accuracy while reducing generated tokens by 62.6% and end-to-end latency by 44.6%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-13T05:55:03Z)
• Recursive Agentic Reasoning [4.7490116928645065]
  Test-time reasoning methods such as iterative refinement, decomposition, and repeated sampling are often evaluated in isolation.<n>We introduce a unified view of these methods as recursion operators over an agent's reasoning trace.<n>We evaluate all three operators against a single-pass chain-of-thought baseline under a shared harness with identical prompts, token budgets, and grading code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T01:34:08Z)
• Claim-Level Reliability Assessment for Efficient Test-Time Reasoning [9.168249719115845]
  We propose claim-level falsification as a principle for test-time scaling and instantiate it through Claim-Level Reliability Assessment (CLR)<n>CLR reallocates test-time compute from additional solution sampling to targeted verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-12T12:33:05Z)
• Beyond Aggregate Calibration: Decomposing Income-Conditional Recall Disparities in Automated Credit Default Prediction [0.0]
  High-income defaulters are disproportionately classified as label noise relative to low-income defaulters.<n>A 16.86 percentage point gap in true positive rate (recall) between high- and low-income borrowers who ultimately defaulted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-08T15:57:15Z)
• Before the Action: Benchmarking LLMs on Prospective Hypothesis Discovery [95.44432473367836]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at answering pre-specified questions, yet their ability to navigate the open-ended, pre-conclusion stage of discovery remains largely unmeasured.<n>We introduce Prospective Hypothesis Discovery (PHD), which asks models to autonomously construct grounded, discnative, and testable hypothesis spaces from inconclusive evidence.<n>We introduce HypoArena, comprising HypoData, a benchmark of 988 cases across six scientific and analytical domains, and HypoEval, an evaluation framework for open-ended hypothesis sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T08:56:43Z)
• Step-wise Rubric Rewards for LLM Reasoning [72.17879367869503]
  Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) is widely used to improve reasoning in large language models.<n>We find 18.2% of steps in correct responses are wrong yet positively rewarded.<n>Across six mathematical reasoning benchmarks, SRaR improves average accuracy over RaR by 3.57 points.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T07:08:14Z)
• When the Ruler is Broken: Parsing-Induced Suppression in LLM-Based Security Log Evaluation [0.0]
  We demonstrate a class of silent, systematic evaluation errors that can cause a fully functional model to appear completely non-functional categories.<n>We propose SOC-Bench v0, a benchmark framework comprising a standardized 13 category threat taxonomy, minimum statistical power requirements, fuzzy field extraction specification, and a public scoring script intended to prevent specific accuracy distortion in future SOC research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T06:03:11Z)
• ReasoningBomb: A Stealthy Denial-of-Service Attack by Inducing Pathologically Long Reasoning in Large Reasoning Models [67.15960154375131]
  Large reasoning models (LRMs) extend large language models with explicit multi-step reasoning traces.<n>This capability introduces a new class of prompt-induced inference-time denial-of-service (PI-DoS) attacks that exploit the high computational cost of reasoning.<n>We present ReasoningBomb, a reinforcement-learning-based PI-DoS framework that is guided by a constant-time surrogate reward.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T18:53:01Z)
• Reasoning-Enhanced Rare-Event Prediction with Balanced Outcome Correction [45.88028371034407]
  We propose LPCORP (Low-Prevalence CORrector for Prediction)*, a two-stage framework that combines reasoningenhanced prediction with confidence-based outcome correction.<n>We evaluate LPCORP on real-world datasets from medical and consumer service domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T02:34:29Z)
• Causal Understanding by LLMs: The Role of Uncertainty [43.87879175532034]
  Recent papers show LLMs achieve near-random accuracy in causal relation classification.<n>We investigate whether pretraining exposure to causal examples improves causal understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T13:06:35Z)
• An Auditable Pipeline for Fuzzy Full-Text Screening in Systematic Reviews: Integrating Contrastive Semantic Highlighting and LLM Judgment [0.0]
  Full-text screening is the major bottleneck of systematic reviews.<n>We present a scalable, auditable pipeline that reframes inclusion/exclusion as a fuzzy decision problem.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-17T17:41:50Z)
• Benchmarking Reasoning Robustness in Large Language Models [76.79744000300363]
  We find significant performance degradation on novel or incomplete data.<n>These findings highlight the reliance on recall over rigorous logical inference.<n>This paper introduces a novel benchmark, termed as Math-RoB, that exploits hallucinations triggered by missing information to expose reasoning gaps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T15:36:06Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.