Tabular Foundation Models vs Tuned Gradient Boosting for Telecom Churn: A Profit- and Calibration-Aware Evaluation
원문 초록
Tabular foundation models (TFMs) predict from a labelled context in a single forward pass. A recent benchmark reported that they decisively outperform tree ensembles for customer churn, but it compared them with untuned gradient-boosted trees (GBDTs) and scored only ranking metrics, while a retention campaign is judged in money. We re-evaluate TabPFN-2.5, TabPFN-3.5, TabPFN-3.5-Fast and TabICL v2 against Optuna-tuned GBDTs on five public telecom churn datasets over 10 seeded splits. We separate three questions: whether a model ranks churners well, whether that ranking earns more expected maximum profit (EMP), and whether its probabilities can drive a threshold policy. With a split-aware test and Holm correction over 20 pre-declared comparisons, TabPFN-3.5 earns significantly more EMP than the best tuned GBDT on Cell2Cell (1.9%) and Iranian (7.6%), and these two gains also hold against each of the three tuned GBDTs separately. On Orange it is ahead in all 10 splits (14.3%), but the gain is not significant after correction (Holm p = 0.155). The splits resample the same datasets, so these results do not stand for independent operators. TabICL v2, the earlier benchmark's leader, beats the best tuned GBDT only on Iranian, not all three of them, and underpredicts Orange churn by 2.1 points on a 7.3% base rate. On the datasets and splits where we tested them, a substantially larger tuning budget and a duplicate-aware split leave the main conclusions unchanged. Retuning the baseline cuts the earlier headline gap from 6.1 to 4.0 PR-AUC points without closing it. The licence of the TabPFN-3.5 weights we used (License v1.0), not scoring cost, is what stands between its gains and production use.
제출 이력
확인된 버전만 표시합니다. 전체 제출 이력은 arXiv 원문에서 확인하세요.
- arXiv:2611.12942v1제출 시각 미확인
함께 살펴볼 논문
공통 태그를 근거로 연결했습니다. 실제 인용 관계나 논문의 우수성을 뜻하지 않습니다.
공통 태그로 연결된 공개 논문이 아직 없습니다.
토론
이 논문과 연결된 포럼 글이 아직 없습니다.