Rethinking Sales Lead Scoring with LLM-based Hierarchical Preference Ranking
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Preference alignment for recommenders and RAG
Abstract (arXiv)
Sales lead conversion in high-stakes domains (e.g., automotive, real estate) differs fundamentally from e-commerce recommendation due to prolonged decision cycles and multi-stage funnels. Traditional lead scoring methods rule-based scorecards, machine learning, or pointwise CTR models face severe challenges: sparse supervision, a semantic gap in unstructured CRM logs, and inability to capture relative lead priority. While Large Language Models(LLMs) offer superior semantic understanding of customer interactions, general-purpose LLMs are ill-suited for lead ranking: they generate text rather than comparable scores, and lack alignment with the hierarchical priorities of sales funnels. We introduce an LLM-based discriminative framework for sales lead scoring, which supports joint modeling of structured CRM features and unstructured customer interactions. On top of this framework, we propose HPRO (Hierarchical Preference Ranking Optimization), which augments sales lead scoring with a hierarchical preference ranking objective. HPRO employs a margin-aware Bradley-Terry formulation to transform sparse binary labels into dense, funnel-aware preference pairs, enabling lead scoring to leverage both pointwise and pairwise supervision. Experiments on large-scale data from a leading NEV brand demonstrate state-of-the-art classification (AUC 0.8161) and ranking performance (+39.7% precision among top-ranked leads). A 132-day online A/B test validates 9.5% sales volume uplift, confirming real-world commercial impact.
Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Preference alignment for recommenders and RAG, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 12 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Jun 2026.
Builds on
12 of 34 references.
References · 12
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
- 2019A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networkscited by 2,919
- 2016Wide & Deep Learning for Recommender Systemscited by 747
- 2017DeepFM: A Factorization-Machine based Neural Network for CTR Predictioncited by 676
- 2024ORPO: Monolithic Preference Optimization without Reference Modelcited by 562
- 2017Deep & Cross Network for Ad Click Predictionscited by 393
- 2020DCN V2: Improved Deep & Cross Network and Practical Lessons for Web-scale Learning to Rank Systemscited by 327
- 2018AutoInt: Automatic Feature Interaction Learning via Self-Attentive Neural Networkscited by 320
- 2018xDeepFM: Combining Explicit and Implicit Feature Interactions for Recommender Systemscited by 278
- 2024CRMArena: Understanding the Capacity of LLM Agents to Perform Professional CRM Tasks in Realistic Environmentscited by 71
- 2025CRMArena-Pro: Holistic Assessment of LLM Agents Across Diverse Business Scenarios and Interactionscited by 47
- 2022GraphFM: Improving Large-Scale GNN Training via Feature Momentumcited by 31
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.
1 paper.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Sell More, Play Less: Benchmarking LLM Realistic Selling Skill
- 2026ZooWork-ShopRanker: An Open, Preference-Aligned E-Commerce Reranker
- 2025Enhancing Rating Prediction with Off-the-Shelf LLMs Using In-Context User Reviews
- 2026Nonparametric LLM Evaluation from Preference Data
- 2026Mind the Gap: Bridging Behavioral Silos with LLMs in Multi-Vertical Recommendations
- 2026Shopping Companion: Benchmarking and Training LLM Agents for Long-Horizon Preference-Grounded E-Commerce Tasks
- 2026Let the Agent Steer: Closed-Loop Ranking Optimization via Influence Exchange
- 2026Distill Globally, Adapt Locally: Reasoning Distillation and Product-Type Test-Time Training for Scalable Trade-Up Recommendation