Eitan Anzenberg

Bingxuan Li, Jeonghwan Kim, Cheng Qian et al.

Overlapping calendar invitations force busy professionals to repeatedly decide which meetings to attend, reschedule, or decline. We refer to this preference-driven decision process as calendar conflict resolution. Automating this decision process is crucial yet challenging. Scheduling logistics can drain hours, and human delegation often fails at scale, which motivates us to ask: Can we trust large language models (LLMs) or language agents to manage time? To enable a systematic study of this question, we introduce CalConflictBench, a benchmark for long-horizon calendar conflict resolution. In CalConflictBench, conflicts are presented to agents round-by-round over a calendar year, requiring them to infer and adapt to user preferences progressively. Our experiments show that current LLM agents perform poorly with high error rates, e.g., Qwen-3-30B-Think has an average error rate of 35%. To address this gap, we propose PEARL, a reinforcement-learning framework that (i) augments the language agent with an external preference memory that stores and updates inferred strategies (e.g., attendee priorities, topic importance, time/location preferences), and (ii) optimizes the agent with round-wise rewards that directly supervise decision correctness, ranking quality, and memory usage across rounds. Experiments on CalConflictBench show that PEARL achieves an error reduction rate of 0.76 and a 55% improvement in average error rate compared to the strongest baseline.

Eitan Anzenberg, Arunava Samajpati, Sivasankaran Chandrasekar et al.

The use of large language models (LLMs) in hiring promises to streamline candidate screening, but it also raises serious concerns regarding accuracy and algorithmic bias where sufficient safeguards are not in place. In this work, we benchmark several state-of-the-art foundational LLMs - including models from OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, and Deepseek, and compare them with our proprietary domain-specific hiring model (Match Score) for job candidate matching. We evaluate each model's predictive accuracy (ROC AUC, Precision-Recall AUC, F1-score) and fairness (impact ratio of cut-off analysis across declared gender, race, and intersectional subgroups). Our experiments on a dataset of roughly 10,000 real-world recent candidate-job pairs show that Match Score outperforms the general-purpose LLMs on accuracy (ROC AUC 0.85 vs 0.77) and achieves significantly more equitable outcomes across demographic groups. Notably, Match Score attains a minimum race-wise impact ratio of 0.957 (near-parity), versus 0.809 or lower for the best LLMs, (0.906 vs 0.773 for the intersectionals, respectively). We discuss why pretraining biases may cause LLMs with insufficient safeguards to propagate societal biases in hiring scenarios, whereas a bespoke supervised model can more effectively mitigate these biases. Our findings highlight the importance of domain-specific modeling and bias auditing when deploying AI in high-stakes domains such as hiring, and caution against relying on off-the-shelf LLMs for such tasks without extensive fairness safeguards. Furthermore, we show with empirical evidence that there shouldn't be a dichotomy between choosing accuracy and fairness in hiring: a well-designed algorithm can achieve both accuracy in hiring and fairness in outcomes.