Certifying What Helps Customer-Return Timing: A Screen-and-Confirm Test for Conditioning Signals, and Why Decay Is Nearly Enough

arXiv:2608.11555v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Practitioners enrich customer-return models with ever more signals (lifetime value, category, recency/frequency, calendar, geography), and the temporal-point-process (TPP) literature follows suit with covariate- and external-covariate-conditioned intensities. But does any of it improve the timing, and how would you know? A null ("feature X doesn't help") is only meaningful if the model could have found a signal. We make two contributions--a method and a measurement--to answer this credibly. (i) A screen-and-confirm protocol that certifies whether a candidate signal improves a TPP's event-timing likelihood: a positive control plants a coupling of known strength and confirms the model recovers it, so a real-data null can be read as "no signal" rather than "weak method." The control is validated for categorical and continuous encodings, and on a real clock-driven dataset (NYC taxi hour-of-day). (ii) A model-free ceiling quantifying how little of customer-return timing is point-predictable at all (a single-digit percentage of gap variance from any covariate; returns are near-memoryless). With these we certify a clean result on three public benchmarks (Amazon, Taobao, RetailRocket) and a real marketplace (Thumbtack): the inter-event clock--continuous-time decay, long known to beat frozen-intensity models--is nearly sufficient, and the conditioning the field keeps adding is redundant or harmful on top of it (statistically null on the public benchmarks, at most 0.06 NLL; null to mildly harmful on the marketplace). We do not claim to discover that decay helps; our contribution is the tools that turn "conditioning doesn't help" into a checkable, certified statement--plus an honest-evaluation account of the read-out/leakage pitfalls we hit and retracted.

Source: arXiv cs.LG | 2026-08-13