Liu, Yu, Du, Xingbang · Nov 8, 2026
arXiv cs.AI: LoMASA, a Local Multi-Agent Sales Assistant for B2B Quoting
Markdown · JSON · Original source
Yu Liu and Xingbang Du present LoMASA, a training-free multi-agent system designed to help frontline sales staff respond to changing B2B quotes. It runs on one desktop computer: a 35B model makes decisions using confidence read from answer-option probabilities, while a 27B dense model writes customer replies and escalation briefs when consulted. Code computes every price, margin and option, and hard pricing rules cannot be overridden. In a test split of 500 simulated episodes built from public supply-chain data, salespeople had to decide 19.5% of decisions; 38.0% were handled automatically, and hard rules escalated 42.5% to a manager. For automatically handled decisions, the authors report accuracy matching a rule baseline and fewer commitments whose margin later fell below the floor, at the price of additional manager escalations. They also report that option probabilities were without training, unlike confidence stated in words by the same model. The 27B model rarely changed a decision, a case where the design did not help. These results concern simulated episodes; how the system performs in live sales work remains an open question.
Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 8, 2026 (2026-11-08).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-12T06:32:18.760Z. First observed: 2026-11-10T08:34:22.042Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-12T06:31:20.792Z.
Referenced by
Recorded citations and public file attachments. A reference alone does not establish agreement or influence.
No public references recorded here yet.
Limits
The reported results come from a test split of simulated episodes built from public supply-chain data; they do not establish performance in live sales work.
Open question
How would LoMASA perform on real sales decisions beyond the simulated episodes used in this test?
Source-stated
Liu and Du present LoMASA as a training-free system for B2B quoting that runs on one desktop computer.
We present LoMASA (Local Multi-Agent Sales Assistant), a training-free multi-agent system that runs entirely on one desktop computer.
Source-stated
The system uses a 35B mixture-of-experts model for decisions and a 27B dense model for customer replies and escalation briefs; code computes prices, margins and options, and hard pricing rules cannot be overridden.
Code computes every price, margin and option, and hard pricing rules cannot be overridden.
Source-stated
In a test split of 500 simulated episodes, salespeople made 19.5% of decisions, 38.0% were settled automatically, and 42.5% were escalated by hard rules.
On a test split of 500 simulated episodes with 1512 decisions built from public supply-chain data, the salesperson has to decide only 19.5% of decisions: 38.0% are settled automatically, with a median latency of 2.67 seconds, and 42.5% are escalated to a manager by the hard rules.
Source-stated
On automatically settled decisions, LoMASA matched the rule baseline's accuracy and made fewer commitments whose margin later fell below the floor; the authors describe additional manager escalations as the price.
On the automatically settled decisions LoMASA is as accurate as a rule baseline (0.894 vs.\ 0.894) and makes fewer commitments whose margin later falls below the floor (2.61% vs 4.53%); the price is additional escalations to the manager.
Source-stated
The authors report that option probabilities were well calibrated without training and that the 27B model rarely changed a decision.
Option probabilities are well calibrated without any training, unlike confidence stated in words by the same model. We also report where the design does not help: the 27B model rarely changes a decision.
Source and contributor context
Liu, Yu, Du, Xingbang · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Mixture of experts
A model design that sends each input to a few specialized sub-networks instead of the whole model, which saves computation.
Model calibration
Whether a model's stated confidence matches how often it turns out to be right.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: ab3e7758-5b4c-48c6-885a-c93962fe0be5.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-12T06:32:18.760Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 1706be9b94628110e176b26c43c25860461cbc1a4e27d40fc643876ff930aa4e. Source text hash: abb6b56735e5892c740972cf679fc292f5a839f795e3cdca2a38eadb02892f0b.
Revision and source-check history
Version 1 · 2026-11-12T06:32:18.760Z
arXiv cs.AI: LoMASA, a Local Multi-Agent Sales Assistant for B2B Quoting
Yu Liu and Xingbang Du present LoMASA, a training-free multi-agent system designed to help frontline sales staff respond to changing B2B quotes. It runs on one desktop computer: a 35B model makes decisions using confidence read from answer-option probabilities, while a 27B dense model writes customer replies and escalation briefs when consulted. Code computes every price, margin and option, and hard pricing rules cannot be overridden. In a test split of 500 simulated episodes built from public supply-chain data, salespeople had to decide 19.5% of decisions; 38.0% were handled automatically, and hard rules escalated 42.5% to a manager. For automatically handled decisions, the authors report accuracy matching a rule baseline and fewer commitments whose margin later fell below the floor, at the price of additional manager escalations. They also report that option probabilities were without training, unlike confidence stated in words by the same model. The 27B model rarely changed a decision, a case where the design did not help. These results concern simulated episodes; how the system performs in live sales work remains an open question.
Original source
cs.AI · Article
Source details
Original source date: Nov 8, 2026 (2026-11-08).
Date basis: Date basis not provided.
Added to Escape Meridian: 2026-11-12T06:32:18.760Z. First observed: 2026-11-10T08:34:22.042Z. Retrieved: 2026-11-12T06:31:20.792Z.
Limits
The reported results come from a test split of simulated episodes built from public supply-chain data; they do not establish performance in live sales work.
Open question
How would LoMASA perform on real sales decisions beyond the simulated episodes used in this test?
Source-stated
Liu and Du present LoMASA as a training-free system for B2B quoting that runs on one desktop computer.
We present LoMASA (Local Multi-Agent Sales Assistant), a training-free multi-agent system that runs entirely on one desktop computer.
Source-stated
The system uses a 35B mixture-of-experts model for decisions and a 27B dense model for customer replies and escalation briefs; code computes prices, margins and options, and hard pricing rules cannot be overridden.
Code computes every price, margin and option, and hard pricing rules cannot be overridden.
Source-stated
In a test split of 500 simulated episodes, salespeople made 19.5% of decisions, 38.0% were settled automatically, and 42.5% were escalated by hard rules.
On a test split of 500 simulated episodes with 1512 decisions built from public supply-chain data, the salesperson has to decide only 19.5% of decisions: 38.0% are settled automatically, with a median latency of 2.67 seconds, and 42.5% are escalated to a manager by the hard rules.
Source-stated
On automatically settled decisions, LoMASA matched the rule baseline's accuracy and made fewer commitments whose margin later fell below the floor; the authors describe additional manager escalations as the price.
On the automatically settled decisions LoMASA is as accurate as a rule baseline (0.894 vs.\ 0.894) and makes fewer commitments whose margin later falls below the floor (2.61% vs 4.53%); the price is additional escalations to the manager.
Source-stated
The authors report that option probabilities were well calibrated without training and that the 27B model rarely changed a decision.
Option probabilities are well calibrated without any training, unlike confidence stated in words by the same model. We also report where the design does not help: the 27B model rarely changes a decision.
Source and contributor context
Liu, Yu, Du, Xingbang · Article author
These are credits stated by the source; they do not establish a profile match or authorship of every passage.
Source media
No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction.
Terms and references
Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.
Mixture of experts
A model design that sends each input to a few specialized sub-networks instead of the whole model, which saves computation.
Model calibration
Whether a model's stated confidence matches how often it turns out to be right.
arXiv
arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Editorial provenance
Version 1. Publication ID: ab3e7758-5b4c-48c6-885a-c93962fe0be5.
Prepared by gpt-6-luna; grounding review by gpt-6-luna.
Source check: uncertain by anthropic/claude-opus-5.5 on 2026-11-12T06:32:18.760Z. This checks fidelity to the source, not whether its claims are independently true.
Editorial selection: accept; reasons: material_development.
Observation: 1706be9b94628110e176b26c43c25860461cbc1a4e27d40fc643876ff930aa4e. Source text hash: abb6b56735e5892c740972cf679fc292f5a839f795e3cdca2a38eadb02892f0b.
uncertain · 2026-11-12T06:32:18.760Z · anthropic/claude-opus-5.5
Publication: ab3e7758-5b4c-48c6-885a-c93962fe0be5
attribution — pass: The reading correctly credits the paper to Yu Liu and Xingbang Du on arXiv cs.AI. It keeps results attributed to the authors ('the authors report') rather than presenting them as established facts.
Authors:Yu Liu, Xingbang Du
summary — uncertain: The reading blurs the paper's central idea, confidence-gated delegation. The source says the 27B model writes replies and briefs AND is consulted when System-1 is unsure. The draft's phrase 'when consulted' never says the trigger is low confidence. Smallest repair: add 'and is consulted when the 35B model is unsure.' Also, 'mixture-of-experts', 'dense model', 'B2B' and 'well calibrated' need tooltips or brief plain glosses. For 'well calibrated', a gloss such as 'its confidence matched how often it was right' would make the significance readable for non-specialists.
A 27B dense model (System-2) writes customer replies and escalation briefs and is consulted when System-1 is unsure.
date — pass: The originalPublished date of 2026-11-08 matches the v1 submission date on the arXiv page. It is not taken from the later feed date.
[Submitted on 8 Nov 2026]
support — pass: Every number and claim is source-stated: the 19.5/38.0/42.5% split, matching accuracy, fewer below-floor commitments at the cost of extra escalations, calibration, and the 27B model rarely changing a decision. The limitation about simulated episodes and the open question are appropriately framed rather than asserted. No invented benefits or costs.
the price is additional escalations to the manager
media — pass: The selected media is the verified direct arXiv abstract page for this paper. It is the most direct access to the source.
Challenge or correct this reading
Send a correction or an opposing source with this reading’s URL. Disagreement and uncertainty can remain unresolved.
A model design that sends each input to a few specialized sub-networks instead of the whole model, which saves computation.
Definition referenceWhether a model's stated confidence matches how often it turns out to be right.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXivA model design that sends each input to a few specialized sub-networks instead of the whole model, which saves computation.
Definition referenceWhether a model's stated confidence matches how often it turns out to be right.
Definition referencearXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.
Explore arXiv