Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 34 references

Fitting the Message to the Moment: Designing Calendar-Aware Stress Messaging with Large Language Models

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read University students want LLM stress support to target stressful calendar events and speak briefly and conversationally.

desk verdict A small, honest design probe whose 'prioritize stressful events' finding is solid, but whose 'colloquial tone' claim outruns the interview data. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23997 v1 pith:SRNFFZQG submitted 2025-05-29 cs.HC cs.CY

Pranav Rao , Maryam Taj , Alex Mariakakis , Joseph Jay Williams , Ananya Bhattacharjee This is my paper
classification cs.HCcs.CY
keywords stressmanagementdigitalcalendarslargelanguagemodelstextmessagingjust-in-timeadaptiveinterventionstechnologyprobethematicanalysisuniversitystudents
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks how university students imagine large language models using their digital calendar data to deliver stress support, and it answers with two concrete design requirements. After a one-week trial in which eight students received daily, calendar-triggered stress-management texts adapted by an LLM, interviews showed that students want the system to select genuinely stressful events rather than routine ones, and to write in a concise, colloquial tone. The authors argue that LLMs need structured contextual input, supplemented by targeted questions when calendar entries are vague, to tell low-stakes from stressful events, and that matching a user's conversational tone could build trust and encourage emotional disclosure. The study is offered as an early exploration of user expectations, not as evidence about long-term effectiveness.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a functional technology probe: a lightweight system that each day randomly selected one Google Calendar event, sent a text shortly before it asking how the participant felt, and used GPT-4 to select and adapt a message from a curated set of expert-authored stress-reduction exercises, followed by a post-event helpfulness rating. The probe is deliberately not a full intervention; its job is to put a realistic calendar-aware LLM experience in front of students for a week so their reactions and interviews can reveal design requirements. The random event selection acts as a contrast condition, surfacing what happens when the system ignores the stressfulness of an event, while the LLM's calendar-plus-check-in context carries the personalization.

What would settle it

Run a six-week deployment with a larger sample that randomly assigns students to calendar-aware LLM messages versus generic stress messages, measuring engagement and perceived helpfulness each day: if the calendar-aware arm does not outperform, or if messages about non-stressful events are rated as helpful as often as messages about stressful ones, the paper's central design requirements would not hold in practice.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the finding is that university students envision LLM calendar-aware stress support as a filter-plus-voice system: it should pick out the events that actually cause stress and adapt expert-authored coping suggestions to each event in a brief, conversational style. Participants engaged most when messages targeted perceived stressors and disengaged when messages arrived for routine events, sometimes feeling that an anxious prompt induced anxiety where none existed. They also tuned out long, formal, predictable text and distrusted messages that felt AI-generated, which motivated the recommendations for a concise colloquial tone and structured questioning. The paper labels these as design implications for LLM-based stress-management tools, grounded in qualitative thematic analysis of eight semi-structured interviews.

Load-bearing premise

The claim depends on the assumption that the preferences eight students stated after a one-week probe with randomly selected events will match how students actually respond to, and benefit from, a calendar-aware LLM system in long-term use.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Future calendar-aware stress tools should filter for genuinely stressful events, since messages about routine events lowered engagement and could even create anxiety.
  • Message text should stay short, end with a clear call to action, and use a casual tone that mirrors the user, because long or formal content was skimmed or ignored.
  • When calendar entries are vague or shorthand, systems should supplement them with structured questions asked during idle time so the LLM can distinguish low-stakes from stressful events.
  • Designers should anticipate that visible AI-generated phrasing reduces trust, so tone calibration is a trust mechanism, not just a style preference.
  • The findings are initial requirements, and testing them in longitudinal deployments is the stated next step before they become design specifications.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural extension is to test whether an LLM can rank calendar events by anticipated stress; this study's random event selection implicitly marks that ranking as the central technical problem to solve.
  • The report of anxiety triggered by an anxious check-in suggests the measurement prompt itself can contaminate the intervention, so future probes should compare prompted delivery against passive calendar-only delivery.
  • The split verdict on predictable message structure hints that the winning style may be a stable skeleton with varied phrasing; eight participants cannot resolve that interaction, but a larger study could.
  • The authors' own caution that stated preferences may diverge from real use means these design requirements should be read as hypotheses for longitudinal deployment, not final specifications.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This short paper reports a one-week technology-probe study with eight university students to explore how LLMs might use digital calendar data to deliver personalized stress-management messages. The probe randomly selected a calendar event each day, prompted a feelings check-in, and used GPT-4 to adapt an expert-authored stress-management message to the event and check-in context. Semi-structured interviews were analyzed thematically. The authors report that participants valued interventions that prioritize genuinely stressful events and adopted a concise but colloquial tone, and they derive design implications around structured questioning and tone calibration.

Significance. The study is an honest, early-stage qualitative investigation of a timely design space, and it has real strengths: it uses a functional probe rather than a hypothetical scenario, includes daily monitoring and ethical safeguards, and is transparent about its limitations in Section 7. If the findings hold, they offer actionable design requirements for calendar-aware LLM wellbeing tools: prioritize stressful events, keep messages short, and calibrate tone to build trust. However, the contribution is limited by the small sample, the reliance on stated preferences rather than measured outcomes, and the absence of example messages. The paper explicitly acknowledges some of these limits, which is to its credit, but the abstract and Section 6 overstate the empirical support for the 'colloquial tone' component of the central claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 6 / Abstract / Section 8] The central claim that participants envisioned 'a concise, but colloquial tone' is only partially supported by the reported data. The 'concise' half is directly evidenced by P8's report of skimming longer messages and P1's older-phone truncation. The 'colloquial' half is not: P3 called messages 'generic,' P7 doubted that a message from an LLM 'wouldn't give me the same strength of confidence as a real person,' and P8 missed 'that sense of real-life community,' but no quoted participant asks for informal or colloquial wording. A message can be personal and warm without being colloquial, and the probe never delivered a systematically colloquial condition, so stated preferences cannot establish that register as an empirical finding. I recommend replacing 'colloquial' with 'personal/warm' in the abstract and Section 6, or providing direct participant statements that support 'colloquial.'
  2. [Section 3 / Section 5.1] Because the probe randomly selected one calendar event per day, participants never experienced a version of the system that actually prioritizes stressful events. The finding that students 'envision LLMs to pick out stressful events' is therefore a stated preference elicited after exposure to random selection, not an observed response to prioritization. This is a load-bearing distinction for the design recommendation in Section 6.1. The paper should state this explicitly when presenting the finding and, if the data allow, report whether messages for events that participants later labelled stressful were rated as more helpful than messages for routine events (noting the small N).
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 5.2] Participants were divided over message structure, with some valuing predictability and others 'tuning out' due to repetition; this nuance should be reflected in the abstract's single-sentence characterization of message style rather than flattened into 'concise and colloquial.'
  2. [Section 3 / Figure 1] Please include one or two de-identified example messages (with event context) so readers can independently assess the claims about 'formal/impersonal' tone and 'concise' length. This would considerably strengthen the report.
  3. [Section 4.1] The reported mean age '20.4 ±0.2' appears to use an unusual statistic; please clarify whether the value after ± is the standard deviation, standard error, or range.
  4. [Section 6.2] The recommendation that 'future work should instruct LLMs to mirror the participant's conversational tone' is presented as a direct consequence of the findings, but the data do not test mirroring; consider framing it as a design hypothesis to be tested.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation; self-citations are contextual and the central findings come from participant data.

full rationale

This paper does not contain a mathematical or statistical derivation chain, so the classic circularity patterns based on fitted parameters, equations reducing to definitions, or uniqueness theorems do not apply. The central claims—that students want stressful events prioritized and messages adapted with a concise, colloquial tone—are presented as qualitative themes from interviews with eight participants, grounded in quotes such as P1's comment about unsolicited advice and P8's report of skimming longer messages. The technology probe's design is said to be 'inspired by Rao et al. [29]', which is a prior work by overlapping authors, and several related-work citations are also self-citations; however, these citations do not force the reported findings. The interview data and thematic analysis are independent of those prior publications, and no load-bearing argument reduces to a self-cited result. The skeptical concern that 'colloquial' is an interpretive leap from participant complaints about formal or generic messages is a validity or grounding issue, not a circularity issue: the paper does not define 'colloquial' in terms of the outcome, nor does it fit a parameter and then predict the same parameter. Overall, the paper is self-contained as an empirical study and exhibits no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numeric parameters were fitted and no new entities were introduced. The study's contributions are qualitative design implications, so the ledger records only the domain assumptions on which the qualitative claims rest.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A Perceived Stress Scale score of 14 or higher identifies students experiencing at least moderate stress.
    Recruitment eligibility in Section 4.1 uses the PSS threshold to define the participant population, but no independent clinical validation is provided for this threshold.
  • domain assumption Digital calendar events are meaningful indicators of upcoming responsibilities and stressors.
    The probe premise in Sections 1 and 3 assumes that calendar entries contain rich personal context, without validating this for each participant or event.
  • domain assumption GPT-4 faithfully implements the intended message selection and adaptation from the curated content set.
    Section 3 describes daily monitoring by the research team, but no formal audit of output quality or accuracy of event interpretation is reported.
  • domain assumption Participants' stated preferences in one-on-one interviews are a valid basis for design implications.
    The paper itself cautions in Section 7 that stated preferences might diverge from actual user experience in prolonged deployment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fitting the Message to the Moment: Designing Calendar-Aware Stress Messaging with Large Language Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRNFFZQG

@misc{pith2026250523997,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fitting the Message to the Moment: Designing Calendar-Aware Stress Messaging with Large Language Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRNFFZQG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23997}
}
read the original abstract

Existing stress-management tools fail to account for the timing and contextual specificity of students' daily lives, often providing static or misaligned support. Digital calendars contain rich, personal indicators of upcoming responsibilities, yet this data is rarely leveraged for adaptive wellbeing interventions. In this short paper, we explore how large language models (LLMs) might use digital calendar data to deliver timely and personalized stress support. We conducted a one-week study with eight university students using a functional technology probe that generated daily stress-management messages based on participants' calendar events. Through semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis, we found that participants valued interventions that prioritized stressful events and adopted a concise, but colloquial tone. These findings reveal key design implications for LLM-based stress-management tools, including the need for structured questioning and tone calibration to foster relevance and trust.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23997 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Daily flow of the calendar-based LLM probe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Georgia Barbayannis, Muneeb Bandari, Xian Zheng, Hector Baquerizo, Kathryn W Pecor, and Xue Ming. 2022. Academic Stress and Mental Well-Being in College Students: Correlations, Affected Groups, and COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology 13 (2022), 886344. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.886344

    work page arXiv 2022

  2. [2]

    Rebecca Beiter, Rachel Nash, Megan McCrady, David Rhoades, Melissa Linscomb, Michelle Clarahan, and Sam Sammut. 2015. The prevalence and correlates of depression, anxiety, and stress in a sample of college students.Journal of Affective Disorders 173 (2015), 90–96. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.054

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.054 2015

  3. [3]

    Ananya Bhattacharjee, Jiyau Pang, Angelina Liu, Alex Mariakakis, and Joseph Jay Williams. 2023. Design implications for one-way text messaging services that sup- port psychological wellbeing. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 30, 3 (2023), 1–29

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Ananya Bhattacharjee, Jina Suh, Mahsa Ershadi, Shamsi T Iqbal, Andrew D Wilson, and Javier Hernandez. 2024. Understanding Communication Preferences of Information Workers in Engagement with Text-Based Conversational Agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20468 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    I kind of bounce off it

    Ananya Bhattacharjee, Joseph Jay Williams, Karrie Chou, Justice Tomlinson, Jonah Meyerhoff, Alex Mariakakis, and Rachel Kornfield. 2022. " I kind of bounce off it": translating mental health principles into real life through story-based text messages. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-computer Interaction 6, CSCW2 (2022), 1–31

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Ananya Bhattacharjee, Joseph Jay Williams, Jonah Meyerhoff, Harsh Kumar, Alex Mariakakis, and Rachel Kornfield. 2023. Investigating the role of context in the delivery of text messages for supporting psychological wellbeing. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–19

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    It Explains What I am Currently Going Through Per- fectly to a Tee

    Ananya Bhattacharjee, Sarah Yi Xu, Pranav Rao, Yuchen Zeng, Jonah Meyerhoff, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, David C Mohr, Michael Liut, Alex Mariakakis, Rachel Kornfield, et al. 2024. " It Explains What I am Currently Going Through Per- fectly to a Tee": Understanding User Perceptions on LLM-Enhanced Narrative Interventions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.16732 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Ananya Bhattacharjee, Yuchen Zeng, Sarah Yi Xu, Dana Kulzhabayeva, Minyi Ma, Rachel Kornfield, Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed, Alex Mariakakis, Mary P Czerwinski, Anastasia Kuzminykh, Michael Liut, and Joseph Jay Williams. 2024. Under- standing the Role of Large Language Models in Personalizing and Scaffolding Strategies to Combat Academic Procrastination. In Proce...

    arXiv 2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psy- chology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101. doi:10.1191/ 1478088706qp063oa

    2006

  2. [10]

    Sheldon Cohen, Tom Kamarck, and Robin Mermelstein. 1983. Perceived Stress Scale. Database record. doi:10.1037/t02889-000 APA PsycTests

    1983 doi

  3. [11]

    Gavin Doherty, David Coyle, and John Sharry. 2012. Engagement with online mental health interventions: an exploratory clinical study of a treatment for depression. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. 1421–1430

    2012

  4. [12]

    Anne Duffy, Constance Keown-Stoneman, Sarah Goodday, Julie Horrocks, Megan Lowe, Nicholas King, William Pickett, Sarah H McNevin, Stephanie Cunning- ham, Daniela Rivera, Lydia Bisdounis, Christopher R Bowie, Kate Harkness, and Kate EA Saunders. 2020. Predictors of mental healt...

    2020 doi

  5. [13]

    Atharva Gundawar, Karthik Valmeekam, Mudit Verma, and Subbarao Kambham- pati. 2024. Robust Planning with Compound LLM Architectures: An LLM-Modulo Approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.14484 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Michael J Hoefer, Raegan Rychecky, Max Gong, and Stephen Voida. 2025. Tell- Time: An AI-Augmented Calendar with a Voice Interface for Collecting Time-Use Data. In Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Intelligent User Inter- faces. 1366–1380

    2025

  7. [15]

    Esther Howe, Jina Suh, Mehrab Bin Morshed, Daniel McDuff, Kael Rowan, Javier Hernandez, Marah Ihab Abdin, Gonzalo Ramos, Tracy Tran, and Mary P Czer- winski. 2022. Design of digital workplace stress-reduction intervention systems: Effects of intervention type and timing. In Pr...

    2022

  8. [16]

    Hilary Hutchinson, Wendy Mackay, Bo Westerlund, Benjamin B Bederson, Al- lison Druin, Catherine Plaisant, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, Stéphane Conversy, Helen Evans, Heiko Hansen, et al. 2003. Technology probes: inspiring design for and with families. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI ...

    2003

  9. [17]

    Rafal Kocielnik, Natalia Sidorova, Fabrizio Maria Maggi, Martin Ouwerkerk, and Joyce HDM Westerink. 2013. Smart technologies for long-term stress monitoring at work. In proceedings of the 26th IEEE international symposium on computer- based medical systems. IEEE, 53–58

    2013

  10. [18]

    Rachel Kornfield, David C Mohr, Rebecca Ranney, Emily G Lattie, Jonah Mey- erhoff, Joseph Jay Williams, and Madhu Reddy. 2022. Involving Crowdworkers with Lived Experience in Content-Development for Push-Based Digital Mental Health Tools: Lessons Learned from Crowdsourcing Men...

    2022 doi

  11. [19]

    Harsh Kumar, Suhyeon Yoo, Angela Zavaleta Bernuy, Jiakai Shi, Huayin Luo, Joseph Williams, Anastasia Kuzminykh, Ashton Anderson, and Rachel Kornfield

  12. [20]

    1984.Stress, appraisal, and coping

    Richard S Lazarus and Susan Folkman. 1984.Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer publishing company

    1984

  13. [21]

    Jianyang Mei. 2016. Learning Management System Calendar Reminders and Effects on Time Management and Academic Performance. International Research and Review 6, 1 (2016), 29–45

    2016

  14. [22]

    Jonah Meyerhoff, Theresa Nguyen, Chris J Karr, Madhu Reddy, Joseph J Williams, Ananya Bhattacharjee, David C Mohr, and Rachel Kornfield. 2022. System design of a text messaging program to support the mental health needs of non-treatment seeking young adults. Procedia computer ...

    2022

  15. [23]

    Allyson Moore, An Nguyen, Stephany Rivas, Amina Bany-Mohammed, Jenna Majeika, and Lucia Martinez. 2021. A qualitative examination of the impacts of financial stress on college students’ well-being: Insights from a large, private institution. SAGE Open Medicine 9 (2021), 205031...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Inbal Nahum-Shani, Shawna N Smith, Bonnie J Spring, Linda M Collins, Katie Witkiewitz, Ambuj Tewari, and Susan A Murphy. 2018. Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) in mobile health: key components and design principles CUI ’25, July 8–10, 2025, Waterloo, ON, Canada Rao...

    2018

  17. [25]

    Subigya Nepal, Arvind Pillai, William Campbell, Talie Massachi, Eunsol Soul Choi, Xuhai Xu, Joanna Kuc, Jeremy F Huckins, Jason Holden, Colin Depp, et al

  18. [26]

    Osborne, Lisa M

    Michael T. Osborne, Lisa M. Shin, Nehal N. Mehta, Roger K. Pitman, Zahi A. Fayad, and Ahmed Tawakol. 2020. Disentangling the Links Between Psychosocial Stress and Cardiovascular Disease. Circulation: Cardiovascu- lar Imaging 13, 8 (2020), e010931. doi:10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.120.0...

    2020 doi

  19. [27]

    In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

    Contextual ai journaling: Integrating llm and time series behavioral sensing technology to promote self-reflection and well-being using the mindscape app. In Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . 1–8

  20. [28]

    Erika S Poole. 2013. HCI and mobile health interventions: how human–computer interaction can contribute to successful mobile health interventions.Translational behavioral medicine 3, 4 (2013), 402–405

    2013

  21. [29]

    Pablo Paredes, Ran Gilad-Bachrach, Mary Czerwinski, Asta Roseway, Kael Rowan, and Javier Hernandez. 2014. PopTherapy: Coping with stress through pop- culture. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on pervasive computing technologies for healthcare. 109–117

    2014

  22. [30]

    Rohit Saxena, Aryo Pradipta Gema, and Pasquale Minervini. 2025. Lost in Time: Clock and Calendar Understanding Challenges in Multimodal LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.05092 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Pranav Rao, Sarah Yi Xu, Ananya Bhattacharjee, Yuchen Zeng, Alex Mariakakis, and Joseph Jay Williams. 2024. Integrating Digital Calendars with Large Language Models for Stress Management Interventions. (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Naoki Tateyama, Rui Fukui, and Shin’ichi Warisawa. 2022. Mood prediction based on calendar events using multitask learning. IEEE Access 10 (2022), 79747–79759

    2022

  25. [33]

    just-in-time

    Joshua M Smyth and Kristin E Heron. 2016. Is providing mobile interventions" just-in-time" helpful? An experimental proof of concept study of just-in-time intervention for stress management. In 2016 IEEE Wireless Health (WH) . IEEE, 1–7

    2016

  26. [2024]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13067 (2024)

    Large language model agents for improving engagement with behav- ior change interventions: Application to digital mindfulness. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.13067 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.