Case study · Machine Learning

Customer Churn Prediction
Classification · Coursework

A supervised-learning study comparing classification approaches for identifying customers who may leave a service.

Academic projectMachine Learning

01 / Context

The problem

Retention teams need useful risk signals, but classifying churn requires more than selecting a model with a high headline accuracy. Precision, recall, F1, class balance, and the decision threshold all matter.

My role: Team coursework project; model experimentation and analysis are represented in the public repository.

02 / Implementation

How it works

01Understand the data

Inspect feature types, missingness, distributions, and the churn label before fitting models.

02Build baselines

Compare a linear model with tree-based and neural approaches to understand trade-offs in performance and interpretability.

03Evaluate the right things

Report accuracy alongside F1 and other class-sensitive metrics so the model is not judged on a single number.

04Keep the output actionable

The project is an educational prediction workflow; it does not claim to be a production retention platform.

Implementation highlights

  • Data cleaning and exploratory analysis
  • Compared Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and an MLP classifier
  • Explored clustering as a complementary unsupervised view of customer groups
  • Selected Logistic Regression for the reported baseline result

03 / Evidence

What can be verified

The points below summarize the public repository and owner-provided CV where noted. Read the source for implementation details and the evaluation setup before drawing further conclusions.

Accuracy84%

Owner-confirmed CV figure; verify exact split and evaluation setup in the repository before direct comparisons.

F1 score71%

Owner-confirmed CV figure; F1 depends on the positive class and decision threshold.

Selected baselineLogistic Regression

Reported as the selected model in the CV.

04 / Boundaries

Limitations and next questions

  • The reported values need to be interpreted in the context of the data split and class distribution.
  • A coursework result is not evidence of production performance or causal drivers of churn.
  • Clustering is exploratory and should not be interpreted as ground-truth customer segments without validation.
Evidence-first note: a live demo demonstrates an interface and workflow; it does not by itself validate model quality, security, or real-world impact.

Continue exploring

Related work.