Using Meta-Learners and Propensity Score Matching to Optimize Customer Retention

Felix Ruf & Matthias Handrich

International Journal of Market Research2026https://doi.org/10.1177/14707853261423690article
AJG 2ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Companies are increasingly using predictive modeling to manage customer churn proactively. While extant customer retention literature centers mainly on propensity models, recent research indicates merits of uplift models for targeting retention efforts toward customers. However, prior research on uplift modeling relies largely on experimental data and tailored uplift algorithms, making it difficult and costly for practitioners and researchers to apply. Thus, we investigate the applicability and competitiveness of an uplift modeling procedure for customer retention management combining propensity score matching with meta-learner approaches (standard machine learning algorithms). Using a semi-synthetic churn dataset with 1980 customers, we affirm the effectiveness of propensity score matching for reducing covariate imbalance in observational data. The empirical experiments show that meta-learner uplift models outperform tailored uplift random forest approaches regarding Qini scores and computation efficiency. Moreover, the results imply that targeting retention efforts based on a meta-learner uplift model reduces churn more effectively than using propensity models.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/14707853261423690

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{felix2026,
  title        = {{Using Meta-Learners and Propensity Score Matching to Optimize Customer Retention}},
  author       = {Felix Ruf & Matthias Handrich},
  journal      = {International Journal of Market Research},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/14707853261423690},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Using Meta-Learners and Propensity Score Matching to Optimize Customer Retention

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.