mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Learning When to Quit in Sales Conversations

arXiv 2511.01181 ↗First posted 3 Nov 2025cs.CL cs.LGcited by 2

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Salespeople frequently face the dynamic screening decision of whether to persist in a conversation or abandon it to pursue the next lead. Yet, little is known about how these decisions are made, whether they are efficient, or how to improve them. We study these decisions in the context of high-volume outbound sales where leads are ample, but time is scarce and failure is common. We formalize the dynamic screening decision as an optimal stopping problem and develop a generative language model-based sequential decision agent - a stopping agent - that learns whether and when to quit conversations by imitating a retrospectively-inferred optimal stopping policy. Our approach handles high-dimensional textual states, scales to large language models, and works with both open-source and proprietary language models. When applied to calls from a large European telecommunications firm, our stopping agent reduces the time spent on failed calls by 54% while preserving nearly all sales; reallocating the time saved increases expected sales by up to 37%. Upon examining the linguistic cues that drive salespeople's quitting decisions, we find that they tend to overweight a few salient expressions of consumer disinterest and mispredict call failure risk, suggesting cognitive bounds on their ability to make real-time conversational decisions. Our findings highlight the potential of artificial intelligence algorithms to correct cognitively-bounded human decisions and improve salesforce efficiency.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 68 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Nov 2025.

Builds on

24 of 68 references.

References · 24

  1. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
  2. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
  3. 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 9,379
  4. 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,695
  5. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,586
  6. 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,182
  7. 2022Robust Speech Recognition via Large-Scale Weak Supervisioncited by 4,057
  8. 2020wav2vec 2.0: A Framework for Self-Supervised Learning of Speech Representationscited by 3,905
  9. 2023Generative Agents: Interactive Simulacra of Human Behaviorcited by 3,568
  10. 2022Do As I Can, Not As I Say: Grounding Language in Robotic Affordancescited by 2,348
  11. 2025Gemma 3 Technical Reportcited by 1,824
  12. 2024SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineeringcited by 1,737
12 more
  1. 2021Decision Transformer: Reinforcement Learning via Sequence Modelingcited by 1,546
  2. 2024Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Trainingcited by 1,053
  3. 2017Deep Reinforcement Learning that Matterscited by 754
  4. 2018ChauffeurNet: Learning to Drive by Imitating the Best and Synthesizing the Worstcited by 397
  5. 2023Language Models can Solve Computer Taskscited by 372
  6. 2024Is Behavior Cloning All You Need? Understanding Horizon in Imitation Learningcited by 74
  7. 2018Conversations Gone Awry: Detecting Early Signs of Conversational Failurecited by 73
  8. 2016Smart Reply: Automated Response Suggestion for Emailcited by 54
  9. 2024Measuring and Benchmarking Large Language Models' Capabilities to Generate Persuasive Languagecited by 31
  10. 2024OLLIE: Imitation Learning from Offline Pretraining to Online Finetuningcited by 6
  11. 2025An Empirical Risk Minimization Approach for Offline Inverse RL and Dynamic Discrete Choice Modelcited by 3
  12. 2022A Recursive Partitioning Approach for Dynamic Discrete Choice Modeling in High Dimensional Settingscited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.