AI System for Engagement Analysis and Churn Prediction

HR teams spend weeks manually analyzing open-ended survey responses, while churn models often produce false positives. Our AI-driven employee monitoring system automatically processes pulse surveys, extracts themes and sentiment using NLP, and predicts employee churn 4–6 weeks in advance. Baseline accuracy on production data is 85%; after fine-tuning on your data, it exceeds 90%. Stack: PyTorch, Hugging Face Transformers, LangChain, PostgreSQL + pgvector. Deployment on Kubernetes. Implementation includes data audit, MVP in 4–6 weeks, HRIS integration, model training on historical data, dashboards, and alerts. Reducing churn can cut recruitment costs by up to 30% of budget—saving multiple monthly salaries per key employee replaced. For example, a company with 500 employees can save up to $250,000 annually.

def analyze_survey_responses(responses: list[SurveyResponse]) -> EngagementAnalysis:
    topics = extract_topics(responses)
    sentiment_by_topic = {
        topic: analyze_sentiment([r for r in responses if topic in r.topics])
        for topic in topics
    }
    return EngagementAnalysis(
        overall_score=calculate_engagement_score(responses),
        sentiment_by_topic=sentiment_by_topic,
        risk_employees=identify_at_risk(responses),
        top_positive_themes=get_top_themes(sentiment_by_topic, sentiment="positive"),
        top_negative_themes=get_top_themes(sentiment_by_topic, sentiment="negative"),
        recommended_actions=generate_recommendations(sentiment_by_topic),
    )

Why Indirect Signals Matter for Churn Prediction

People often don't state their intention to leave directly. Our employee churn prediction model incorporates behavioral analytics: eNPS drop over two quarters, decreased activity in corporate systems, negative sentiment in surveys, no promotion in >18 months, increased days-off and sick days. The combination of direct and indirect signals yields precision 0.85 and recall 0.82 on production data. Alerts fire 4–6 weeks before likely resignation. A hybrid model (XGBoost + transformer) achieves F1 15–20% higher than pure ML, directly reducing recruitment costs. Our churn prediction is 3 times more reliable than rule-based systems.

Approach Comparison: Rules vs ML Models

The hybrid XGBoost+transformer model surpasses pure ML by 15–20% F1. This ensemble gives the best metrics at moderate infrastructure cost.

Employee engagement is a key factor in productivity and retention. Source: Wikipedia

What's Included in the Development

On pilot data, we achieve Precision 0.87, Recall 0.84, F1 0.85. After calibration on your history, F1 grows to 0.90+. Contact us for a pilot project — we'll assess your data within two weeks.

How We Do It

Stack: Python, PyTorch, Hugging Face Transformers, LangChain for RAG agent (answers engagement-related questions), PostgreSQL + pgvector for embedding storage. Deployment on your Kubernetes or cloud (AWS, GCP, Azure).

Process:

1. Analytics — identify key signal sources.
2. Design — define data schema and metrics.
3. Implementation — write code, train models, build pipelines.
4. Testing — A/B test on a pilot group.
5. Deployment — roll out to production.

Our team has 10+ years in AI/ML, 50+ data analysis projects, and 5 years on the market. We guarantee 99.5% SLA for the model API.

Ensuring Confidentiality

Individual data is only shown when N ≥ 5 (aggregation). HR and managers see aggregated team data. Individual risk scores are visible only to the HR director with explicit employee consent. All data is encrypted with AES-256, compliant with GDPR and 152-FZ.

Reducing churn can cut recruitment costs by up to 30% of budget—saving multiple monthly salaries per key employee replaced. Get a consultation on implementation — we'll assess your project and propose the optimal solution. Request a turnkey system development.

NLP Development: Text Classification, NER, Embeddings, and Information Extraction

We often receive a task: process 50,000 support tickets — currently all manual. Dataset — 3,000 labeled examples, 12 categories, imbalance: one category occupies 40% of the sample, three at 1-2% each. Baseline accuracy — 78%. Sounds decent until you look at recall for rare classes: 0.31, 0.44, 0.28. These classes — complaints and churn threats — are most important to the business.

This is a typical NLP development project. The problem is not the algorithm but that accuracy is the wrong metric. Our experience across 30+ projects shows: we start by analyzing business metrics and only then choose the model.

Why accuracy is not the right metric for rare classes?

Accuracy ignores imbalance. If the "churn" class appears in 2% of cases, the model can predict "all good" and get 98% accuracy — but the business loses clients. Solution: F1 macro (averaged over all classes) or weighted F1. For NER — strict entity F1 (exact matches only). We guarantee: after choosing the correct metric, model quality becomes measurable and predictable.

Text Classification: From BERT to Distillation

BERT-like models are the standard for classification. ruBERT-base or ruBERT-large from DeepPavlov for Russian. multilingual-e5-large — for multiple languages in one pipeline. XLM-RoBERTa-large — a strong multilingual backbone.

Fine-tuning for classification: add a classification head on top of the [CLS] token, train for 3-5 epochs with lr=2e-5, weight decay=0.01. For imbalance — weighted CrossEntropyLoss or focal loss with gamma=2.0. Contact us — we will show a code snippet.

Imbalance case study. Dataset — 3,000 examples, imbalance 1:20. Solution: class_weight via sklearn + CrossEntropyLoss. Additionally — augmentation of rare classes via backtranslation (ru→en→ru through MarianMT). Recall for rare classes rose from 0.31 to 0.67 with a slight drop in accuracy (76%→74%). Full NLP development end-to-end took 3 weeks.

Distillation for production. BERT-large gives F1 0.89, but inference on CPU — 180ms. Distillation into DistilBERT or ruBERT-tiny2 reduces latency to 25ms with F1 0.84. Export to ONNX Runtime provides an additional 1.5-2x speedup. DistilBERT achieves 7x lower latency than BERT-large with only a 5% drop in macro F1 – a typical production trade-off.

How to choose between BERT and LLM for your task?

For most classification and extraction tasks, BERT-sized models offer the best trade-off between cost and performance. Shift to LLMs only when the task demands generation, complex reasoning, or zero-shot generalization.

NER: Named Entity Recognition

NER — extracting persons, organizations, locations, dates, amounts, document numbers. For general categories (PER, ORG, LOC), pre-trained models work well. For specialized ones (medical terms, legal concepts) — fine-tuning is needed.

Data annotation. The main cost of an NER project. For a quality model — 500-2,000 labeled sentences per entity type. Tools: Label Studio (open source) or Prodigy (by spaCy creators). IOB2 format — standard.

Architecture. Token classification on top of BERT: each token gets a label (B-PER, I-PER, O). spaCy 3.x with transformer pipeline — a convenient production choice.

Nested entities. Standard IOB models cannot handle nested entities (organization inside an address). For such tasks — span-based NER: SpanBERT or SpERT. More complex but correct.

Post-processing is mandatory. The model predicts tokens — normalized entities are needed. Date — dateparser. Amounts — regex + validation. Names — deduplication via rapidfuzz. Included in our standard delivery.

Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining

Binary classification positive/negative works out of the box with BERT. Complexity — aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA): "the restaurant has good food but terrible service." For ABSA: aspect extraction (NER) + sentiment per aspect. Joint models BERT-for-ABSA — quality on Russian data is lower due to dataset scarcity. RuSentiment, SentiRuEval — main resources.

For production with simple positive/negative/neutral: distil models are enough. Three classes, balanced dataset, 2,000+ examples — F1 macro 0.82-0.87 in 1-2 days.

Text Summarization

Extractive summarization (select sentences) — TextRank or BM25 without training. Fast, no hallucinations. Good for long documents.

Abstractive (generates new text) — seq2seq: mT5, mBART, FRED-T5, ruT5-large. For production via LLM API (GPT-4, Claude) — often the best cost/quality/speed trade-off.

Embeddings: Vector Representations of Text

Embeddings are the foundation of semantic search, deduplication, clustering, RAG. Quality critically affects downstream tasks.

Models. E5-large-v2, BGE-M3, multilingual-e5-large — strong multilingual embedders. sentence-transformers/paraphrase-multilingual-mpnet-base-v2 — fast option. For Russian: ru-en-RoSBERTa (Skoltech) performs well on semantic textual similarity.

Embedding quality evaluation uses the MTEB benchmark as standard. But top results on MTEB don't guarantee success on a domain dataset — we build domain-specific eval.

Fine-tuning embeddings. If standard models don't give the required Recall@k — contrastive learning on domain pairs with MultipleNegativesRankingLoss. How to perform this for domain data:

1. Collect 500–2,000 semantically similar pairs from your domain.
2. Apply MultipleNegativesRankingLoss with a batch size of 32–64.
3. Train for 1–3 epochs using AdamW (lr=2e-5).
4. Evaluate Recall@k on a held-out domain test set.

This approach yields a 5–15% improvement in Recall@k in practice.

Dimensionality and storage. E5-large: 1024 dim, float32 — 4KB per vector. For 10M documents — 40GB. Quantization int8 reduces to 10GB. FAISS IVF_PQ — more compact but with losses. Included in our deployment recommendations.

Information Extraction

Structured extraction is a frequent task. Examples: key contract terms, technical characteristics, dates and amounts from invoices.

1. Regex + rule-based. For INN, OGRN, amounts, dates — more reliable than neural networks. No data required.
2. NER + post-processing. For variable formats.
3. LLM with structured output. GPT‑4 / Claude with JSON schema — for complex documents. Cost: minimal per document. For 10k+ documents/day — we calculate the economics.

We guarantee a hybrid: regex/NER for typical fields + LLM for edge cases. Our guarantee is backed by years of production experience and more than 30 projects.

Work Stages

Prototype on existing data — 1-3 weeks. Production system with CI/CD — 1.5–2.5 months. Cost is calculated individually — get a consultation for a project estimate.

What's Included

• Model and pipeline architecture documentation
• Access to the model via REST API (FastAPI + ONNX)
• Client team training (2-hour webinar + Q&A)
• Accuracy guarantee on the agreed test set
• Months of post-delivery support (bug fixes, adaptation to new data)

Our Experience

Years of NLP projects from classification to RAG systems. The team includes ML engineers experienced with Hugging Face, spaCy, LangChain, MLOps. We use vLLM, Kubeflow, Weights & Biases — a production stack, not toys. Contact us to evaluate your NLP project within two days — request a free consultation on your text processing pipeline.