Before you go, check out these stories!

0
Hackernoon logoHow to Use Machine Learning Models to Predict Customer Turnover by@jnyh

How to Use Machine Learning Models to Predict Customer Turnover

Author profile picture

@jnyhJames N

perpetual student | fitness enthusiast | passionate data scientist | https://github.com/jnyh

Logistic Regression, KNN, Decision Tree, Random Forest, SVC, Linear SVC, GaussianNB, BernouliNB

Python codes are available: https://github.com/JNYH/Project-McNulty

Customer turnover, or churn rate, is the percentage of an organization’s customer base lost during a given period of time, usually a month or annual basis. A bad churn rate can be very damaging to revenue and profitability.

The goal of this project is to predict customer churn in a Telecommunication company. We will explore 8 predictive analytic models to assess customers’ propensity or risk to churn. These models can generate a list of customers who are most vulnerable to churn, so that business can work towards retaining them.

import pandas as pd 
import numpy as np 
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt 
%matplotlib inline
%config InlineBackend.figure_formats = [‘retina’]
import seaborn as sns
import time
import warnings
warnings.filterwarnings(“ignore”)
from sklearn.model_selection import KFold, cross_val_score
from sklearn.linear_model import LogisticRegression
from sklearn.neighbors import KNeighborsClassifier
from sklearn.naive_bayes import GaussianNB, BernoulliNB, MultinomialNB
from sklearn.tree import DecisionTreeClassifier
from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier
from sklearn.svm import LinearSVC, SVC
from sklearn import metrics
from sklearn.metrics import confusion_matrix, classification_report
from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score, precision_score, recall_score, f1_score, log_loss, fbeta_score
from sklearn.metrics import auc, roc_curve, roc_auc_score, precision_recall_curve

This project is based on IBM sample datasets from Kaggle.

df = pd.read_csv(‘WA_Fn-UseC_-Telco-Customer-Churn.csv’)
# remove 11 rows with spaces in TotalCharges (0.15% missing data)
df['TotalCharges'] = df['TotalCharges'].replace(' ',np.nan)   
df = df.dropna(how = 'any') 
df['TotalCharges'] = df['TotalCharges'].astype(float)
# data overview
print ('Rows     : ', df.shape[0])
print ('Columns  : ', df.shape[1])
print ('\nFeatures : \n', df.columns.tolist())
print ('\nMissing values :  ', df.isnull().sum().values.sum())
print ('\nUnique values :  \n', df.nunique())
df.info()
df.isnull().sum()

In this dataset of over 7000 customers, 26% of them has left in the last month. This is critical to the Telco business because it is often more expensive to acquire new customers than to keep existing ones.

print(df.Churn.value_counts())
df[‘Churn’].value_counts().plot(‘bar’).set_title(‘Churn’)

The features in this dataset include the following:
· demographic data: Gender, SeniorCitizen, Partner, Dependents
· subscribed services: PhoneService, MultipleLine, InternetService, OnlineSecurity, OnlineBackup, DeviceProtection, TechSupport, StreamingTV, StreamingMovies
· customer account information: CustomerID, Contract, PaperlessBilling, PaymentMethod, MonthlyCharges, TotalCharges, Tenure

Target is Churn, which has binary classes 1 and 0.

# replace values for SeniorCitizen as a categorical feature
df[‘SeniorCitizen’] = df[‘SeniorCitizen’].replace({1:’Yes’,0:’No’})
num_cols = [‘tenure’, ‘MonthlyCharges’, ‘TotalCharges’]
df[num_cols].describe()

How do we select features?

Features are selected mainly based on Lasso coefficient and using Random Forest. The p-values and coefficients from Statsmodels have also been considered.

df1 = pd.read_csv(‘df1.csv’)
X, y = df1.drop(‘Churn’,axis=1), df1[[‘Churn’]]
## to find significant features using LassoCV (all X_scaled)
from sklearn.linear_model import LassoCV, RidgeCV, ElasticNetCV
from sklearn.preprocessing import StandardScaler, PolynomialFeatures
print(‘Use LassoCV to find the optimal ALPHA value for L1 regularization’)
std = StandardScaler()
std.fit(X.values)
X_scaled = std.transform(X.values)
print(‘X_scaled’, X_scaled.shape)
alphavec = 10**np.linspace(-3,3,200) 
lasso_model = LassoCV(alphas = alphavec, cv=5)
lasso_model.fit(X_scaled, y)
print(‘LASSO best alpha: ‘, lasso_model.alpha_ )
# display all coefficients in the model with optimal alpha
list(zip(X.columns, lasso_model.coef_))
## To look for top features using Random Forest
rfc = RandomForestClassifier(random_state=0, n_estimators=100)
model = rfc.fit(X, y)
(pd.Series(model.feature_importances_, index=X.columns)
   .nlargest(47)  
   .plot(kind='barh', figsize=[20,15])
   .invert_yaxis())
plt.yticks(size=15)
plt.title('Top Features derived by Random Forest', size=20)

Features are dropped when they do not contribute significantly to the model. Here are some examples (each chart shows the distribution of these over 7000 customers). For example, gender (whether male or female) and phone related services, customers are equally likely to churn, because the ratio of churn and non-churn customers are the same.

# To analyse categorical feature distribution
categorical_features = [ ‘gender’, ‘SeniorCitizen’, ‘Partner’,
 ‘Dependents’, ‘PhoneService’, ‘MultipleLines’, ‘InternetService’,
 ‘OnlineSecurity’, ‘OnlineBackup’, ‘DeviceProtection’, ‘TechSupport’, ‘StreamingTV’, ‘StreamingMovies’, ‘PaymentMethod’,
 ‘PaperlessBilling’, ‘Contract’ ]
ROWS, COLS = 4, 4
fig, ax = plt.subplots(ROWS, COLS, figsize=(18, 20) )
row, col = 0, 0
for i, categorical_feature in enumerate(categorical_features):
 if col == COLS — 1: row += 1
 col = i % COLS
 df[df.Churn==’No’][categorical_feature].value_counts().plot(‘bar’, width=.5, ax=ax[row, col], color=’blue’, alpha=0.5).set_title(categorical_feature)
 df[df.Churn==’Yes’][categorical_feature].value_counts().plot(‘bar’, width=.3, ax=ax[row, col], color=’orange’, alpha=0.7).set_title(categorical_feature)
 plt.legend([‘No Churn’, ‘Churn’])
 fig.subplots_adjust(hspace=0.7)

What are good features to keep? A good feature is when we can distinguish between churn and non-churn customers, especially when the ratio is different. For example, those with month-to-month contract are more likely to leave, which is logical as they are not bounded by yearly contracts.

Feature engineering

These 3 features Tenure, Monthly Charges and Total Charges are continuous data to be split into categories. When I looked at the pair plot, it seems possible to separate the churn (orange) and non-churn (blue) customers.

sns.pairplot(df[['tenure', 'MonthlyCharges', 'TotalCharges', 'Churn']], hue='Churn', plot_kws=dict(alpha=.3, edgecolor='none'), height=2, aspect=1.1)

So, I have carefully selected these separation boundaries (below) to attempt to separate the churn and non-churn cases.

fig, ax = plt.subplots(1, 3, figsize=(15, 3))
df[df.Churn == “No”][num_cols].hist(bins=35, color=”blue”, alpha=0.5, ax=ax)
df[df.Churn == “Yes”][num_cols].hist(bins=35, color=”orange”, alpha=0.7, ax=ax)
plt.legend([‘No Churn’, ‘Churn’], shadow=True, loc=9)
# change MonthlyCharges to categorical column
def monthlycharges_split(df) : 
 if df[‘MonthlyCharges’] <= 30 :
 return030elif (df[‘MonthlyCharges’] > 30) & (df[‘MonthlyCharges’] <= 70 ):
 return3070elif (df[‘MonthlyCharges’] > 70) & (df[‘MonthlyCharges’] <= 99 ):
 return7099elif df[‘MonthlyCharges’] > 99 :
 return99plus’
df[‘monthlycharges_group’] = df.apply(lambda df:monthlycharges_split(df), axis = 1)
# change TotalCharges to categorical column
def totalcharges_split(df) : 
 if df[‘TotalCharges’] <= 2000 :
 return02k’
 elif (df[‘TotalCharges’] > 2000) & (df[‘TotalCharges’] <= 4000 ):
 return2k-4k’
 elif (df[‘TotalCharges’] > 4000) & (df[‘TotalCharges’] <= 6000) :
 return4k-6k’
 elif df[‘TotalCharges’] > 6000 :
 return6kplus’
df[‘totalcharges_group’] = df.apply(lambda df:totalcharges_split(df), axis = 1)
# change Tenure to categorical column
def tenure_split(df) : 
 if df[‘tenure’] <= 20 :
 return020elif (df[‘tenure’] > 20) & (df[‘tenure’] <= 40 ):
 return2040elif (df[‘tenure’] > 40) & (df[‘tenure’] <= 60) :
 return4060elif df[‘tenure’] > 60 :
 return60plus’
df[‘tenure_group’] = df.apply(lambda df:tenure_split(df), axis = 1)

Model selection

I have tested 8 classification models, trained them, optimised them, and here are the results. Logistic Regression generally works well on binary classification and has performed better than the rest. F1-Score is a balance between Precision and Recall rates trade-off.

# split data to 80:20 ratio for train/test
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=.2, random_state=71)
print(‘X_train’, X_train.shape)
print(‘y_train’, y_train.shape)
print(‘X_test’, X_test.shape)
print(‘y_test’, y_test.shape)
def model_report(model_name, model):
 print(‘\nSearch for OPTIMAL THRESHOLD, vary from 0.0001 to 0.9999, fit/predict on train/test data’)
 model.fit(X_train, y_train)
 optimal_th = 0.5 # start with default threshold value
 
 for i in range(0,3):
 score_list = []
 print(‘\nLooping decimal place’, i+1) 
 th_list = [np.linspace(optimal_th-0.4999, optimal_th+0.4999, 11), 
 np.linspace(optimal_th-0.1, optimal_th+0.1, 21), 
 np.linspace(optimal_th-0.01, optimal_th+0.01, 21)]
 for th in th_list[i]:
 y_pred = (model.predict_proba(X_test)[:,1] >= th)
 f1scor = f1_score(y_test, y_pred)
 score_list.append(f1scor)
 print(‘{:.3f}->{:.4f}’.format(th, f1scor), end=’, ‘) 
 optimal_th = float(th_list[i][score_list.index(max(score_list))])
 print(‘optimal F1 score = {:.4f}’.format(max(score_list)))
 print(‘optimal threshold = {:.3f}’.format(optimal_th))
 print(model_name, ‘accuracy score is’)
 print(‘Training: {:.2f}%’.format(100*model.score(X_train, y_train))) # score uses accuracy
 print(‘Test set: {:.2f}%’.format(100*model.score(X_test, y_test)))
 y_pred = (model.predict_proba(X_test)[:,1] >= 0.25)
 print(‘\nAdjust threshold to 0.25:’)
 print(‘Precision: {:.4f}, Recall: {:.4f}, F1 Score: {:.4f}’.format(
 precision_score(y_test, y_pred), recall_score(y_test, y_pred), f1_score(y_test, y_pred)))
 print(model_name, ‘confusion matrix: \n’, confusion_matrix(y_test, y_pred))
 y_pred = model.predict(X_test)
 print(‘\nDefault threshold of 0.50:’)
 print(‘Precision: {:.4f}, Recall: {:.4f}, F1 Score: {:.4f}’.format(
 precision_score(y_test, y_pred), recall_score(y_test, y_pred), f1_score(y_test, y_pred)))
 print(model_name, ‘confusion matrix: \n’, confusion_matrix(y_test, y_pred))
 y_pred = (model.predict_proba(X_test)[:,1] >= 0.75)
 print(‘\nAdjust threshold to 0.75:’)
 print(‘Precision: {:.4f}, Recall: {:.4f}, F1 Score: {:.4f}’.format(
 precision_score(y_test, y_pred), recall_score(y_test, y_pred), f1_score(y_test, y_pred)))
 print(model_name, ‘confusion matrix: \n’, confusion_matrix(y_test, y_pred))
 y_pred = (model.predict_proba(X_test)[:,1] >= optimal_th)
 print(‘\nOptimal threshold {:.3f}’.format(optimal_th))
 print(‘Precision: {:.4f}, Recall: {:.4f}, F1 Score: {:.4f}’.format(
 precision_score(y_test, y_pred), recall_score(y_test, y_pred), f1_score(y_test, y_pred)))
 print(model_name, ‘confusion matrix: \n’, confusion_matrix(y_test, y_pred))
 
 global model_f1, model_auc, model_ll, model_roc_auc
 model_f1 = f1_score(y_test, y_pred)
 y_pred = model.predict_proba(X_test)
 model_ll = log_loss(y_test, y_pred)
 print(model_name, ‘Log-loss: {:.4f}’.format(model_ll))
 y_pred = model.predict(X_test)
 model_roc_auc = roc_auc_score(y_test, y_pred)
 print(model_name, ‘roc_auc_score: {:.4f}’.format(model_roc_auc)) 
 y_pred = model.predict_proba(X_test)[:,1]
 fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_test, y_pred)
 model_auc = auc(fpr, tpr)
 print(model_name, ‘AUC: {:.4f}’.format(model_auc))
 # plot the ROC curve
 plt.figure(figsize = [6,6])
 plt.plot(fpr, tpr, label=’ROC curve (area = %0.2f)’ % model_auc)
 plt.plot([0, 1], [0, 1],’r — ‘)
 plt.xlim([0.0, 1.0])
 plt.ylim([0.0, 1.0])
 plt.xlabel(‘False Positive Rate’)
 plt.ylabel(‘True Positive Rate’)
 plt.title(‘Receiver Operating Characteristic’)
 plt.legend(loc=”lower right”)
 # plt.savefig(‘roc_auc_score’)
 plt.show()
 
 return
# initialise lists to collect the results to plot later
model_list = []
f1_list = []
auc_list = []
ll_list = []
roc_auc_list = []
time_list = []
print(‘\n”””””” LogisticRegression “”””””’)
print(‘\nSearch for optimal hyperparameter C in LogisticRegresssion, vary C from 0.001 to 1000, using KFold(5) Cross Validation on train data’)
kf = KFold(n_splits=5, random_state=21, shuffle=True) 
score_list = []
c_list = 10**np.linspace(-3,3,200)
for c in c_list:
 logit = LogisticRegression(C = c)
 cvs = (cross_val_score(logit, X_train, y_train, cv=kf, scoring=’f1')).mean()
 score_list.append(cvs)
 print(‘{:.4f}’.format(cvs), end=”, “) # 4 decimal pl
print(‘optimal cv F1 score = {:.4f}’.format(max(score_list)))
optimal_c = float(c_list[score_list.index(max(score_list))])
print(‘optimal value of C = {:.3f}’.format(optimal_c))
time1 = time.time()
logit = LogisticRegression(C = optimal_c)
model_report(‘LogisticRegression’, logit)
model_list.append(‘LogisticRegression’)
f1_list.append(model_f1)
auc_list.append(model_auc)
ll_list.append(model_ll)
roc_auc_list.append(model_roc_auc)
time_list.append(time.time() — time1)
## plot the classification report scores
fig, ax = plt.subplots(5, 1, figsize=(18, 28))
ax[0].bar(model_list, f1_list)
ax[0].set_title('F1-score')
ax[1].bar(model_list, auc_list)
ax[1].set_title('AUC-score');
ax[2].bar(model_list, ll_list)
ax[2].set_title('Log-Loss-Score')
ax[3].bar(model_list, roc_auc_list)
ax[3].set_title('ROC AUC Score')
ax[4].bar(model_list, time_list)
ax[4].set_title('Time taken')
fig.subplots_adjust(hspace=0.2, wspace=0.2)

AUC stands for area under curve, which is explained below. The ROC (Receiver Operating Characteristic) curve is a relationship between True Positive Rate and False Positive Rate. Logistic Regression, which is the red line, has an area of 0.82 under this curve. It means the model has performed better than random guesses of 0.5, the diagonal line.

# plot the ROC curves
plt.figure(figsize=(10,10))
y_pred = gnb.predict_proba(X_test)[:,1]
fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_test, y_pred)
plt.plot(fpr, tpr, color=’blue’,
 lw=3, label=’GaussianNB (area = %0.2f)’ % auc_list[0])
y_pred = bnb.predict_proba(X_test)[:,1]
fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_test, y_pred)
plt.plot(fpr, tpr, color=’green’,
 lw=3, label=’BernoulliNB (area = %0.2f)’ % auc_list[1])
y_pred = logit.predict_proba(X_test)[:,1]
fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_test, y_pred)
plt.plot(fpr, tpr, color=’red’,
 lw=2, label=’LogisticRegression (area = %0.2f)’ % auc_list[2])
y_pred = knn.predict_proba(X_test)[:,1]
fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_test, y_pred)
plt.plot(fpr, tpr, color=’yellow’,
 lw=3, label=’KNN (area = %0.2f)’ % auc_list[3])
y_pred = decisiontree.predict_proba(X_test)[:,1]
fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_test, y_pred)
plt.plot(fpr, tpr, color=’purple’,
 lw=2, label=’DecisionTree (area = %0.2f)’ % auc_list[4])
y_pred = randomforest.predict_proba(X_test)[:,1]
fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_test, y_pred)
plt.plot(fpr, tpr, color=’brown’,
 lw=2, label=’RandomForest (area = %0.2f)’ % auc_list[5])
y_pred = linearsvc.predict(X_test)
fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_test, y_pred)
plt.plot(fpr, tpr, color=’cyan’,
 lw=2, label=’LinearSVC (area = %0.2f)’ % auc_list[6])
y_pred = svc.predict_proba(X_test)[:,1]
fpr, tpr, thresholds = roc_curve(y_test, y_pred)
plt.plot(fpr, tpr, color=’magenta’,
 lw=2, label=’SVC (area = %0.2f)’ % auc_list[7])
plt.plot([0, 1], [0, 1], color=’navy’, lw=2, linestyle=’ — ‘)
plt.xlim([0.0, 1.0])
plt.ylim([0.0, 1.0])
plt.xlabel(‘False Positive Rate’, fontsize=13)
plt.ylabel(‘True Positive Rate’, fontsize=14)
plt.title(‘Receiver Operating Characteristic’, fontsize=17)
plt.legend(loc=’lower right’, fontsize=13)
plt.show()

For time taken, Logistic Regression may not be the fastest, but it is definitely not the slowest. SVC is 10 times slower than Random Forest Classifier, which is 10 times slower than Logistic Regression.

Another performance metric is Log-Loss-Score where we look for the model with the lowest loss function. Once again Logistic Regression is the best, and thus it is the final selected model.

Hyperparameter Tuning

Next I tuned the threshold of Logistic Regression to maximise the F1-Score. By tuning this hyperparameter, I have achieved the optimised Recall rate of 76%. Recall is defined as the number of churned customers predicted correctly. However, the trade-off is that only 58% of the churn predictions (Precision rate) are correct. This is due to the limitation in the current model and dataset.

Evaluation on test data

Finally, I evaluated the Logistic Regression model on test data. Features are sorted in descending order of importance from the list of 47 features. Depending on the number of features used in the model, the performance scores are different. Notice that there is a diminishing marginal improvement in the F1-Score.

Conclusion

I would propose to implement the Logistic Regression model with these top 18 features. And business can also focus on this list of features to understand whether a customer will likely to churn or not.

Python codes for the above analysis are available on my GitHub, do feel free to refer to them.

https://github.com/JNYH/Project-McNulty

Video presentation: 

Thank you for reading!





Tags

Join Hacker Noon

Create your free account to unlock your custom reading experience.