Oded Netzer

Emaad Manzoor, Eva Ascarza, Oded Netzer

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.

Tianyi Peng, George Gui, Daniel J. Merlau et al.

Digital representations of individuals ("digital twins") promise to transform social science and decision-making. Yet it remains unclear whether such twins truly mirror the people they emulate. We conducted 19 preregistered studies with a representative U.S. panel and their digital twins, each constructed from rich individual-level data, enabling direct comparisons between human and twin behavior across a wide range of domains and stimuli (including never-seen-before ones). Twins reproduced individual responses with 75% accuracy and seemingly low correlation with human answers (approximately 0.2). However, this apparently high accuracy was no higher than that achieved by generic personas based on demographics only. In contrast, correlation improved when twins incorporated detailed personal information, even outperforming traditional machine learning benchmarks that require additional data. Twins exhibited systematic strengths and weaknesses - performing better in social and personality domains, but worse in political ones - and were more accurate for participants with higher education, higher income, and moderate political views and religious attendance. Together, these findings delineate both the promise and the current limits of digital twins: they capture some relative differences among individuals but not yet the unique judgments of specific people. All data and code are publicly available to support the further development and evaluation of digital twin pipelines.