Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Products

aiqbench analysis

This empirical study benchmarks three distinct approaches—full replanning, classical repair, and LLM-based revision—for handling itinerary disruptions caused by flight cancellations or resource unavailability. The findings highlight a critical trade-off where hierarchical and local repair methods preserve more of the original plan with lower computational costs compared to full LLM-driven replanning. These results offer actionable insights for developers optimizing agentic workflows that must balance feasibility recovery against token consumption and stability.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Replan, Repair, or Edit? A Unified Empirical Evaluation of Travel Agents for Itinerary Revision under Resource Disruptions

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2609.19654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Travel-planning agents generate itineraries that may become infeasible after acceptance because of flight cancellations, hotel unavailability, or attraction closures. Revising these itineraries involves full replanning, classical plan repair, and LLM-based travel-agent revision, whose differing task formulations and evaluation protocols hinder comparison. We conduct a systematic empirical study using two TREK-derived benchmark sets: 500 single-disruption cases, including feasible and infeasible instances, and 200 feasible simultaneous compound-disruption cases. We compare LLM-Z3 full replanning, IPyHOPPER hierarchical repair, and an iTIMO local-revision adapter across effectiveness, plan stability, and computational cost. LLM-Z3 with Gemini achieved the highest observed compound-disruption success. IPyHOPPER nearly matched that configuration's single-disruption overall success, while preserving substantially more of the accepted itinerary on successful repairs. Successful hierarchical and local repairs made fewer edits and retained more accepted commitments than full replanning. Computational profiles differed: IPyHOPPER used no LLM inference, the evaluated LLM-Z3 adapter used compact one-call inference, and the iTIMO adapter consumed substantially more tokens. The study provides practical guidelines for balancing feasibility recovery, commitment preservation, and computational cost within evaluated settings.

Title:Replan, Repair, or Edit? A Unified Empirical Evaluation of Travel Agents for Itinerary Revision under Resource Disruptions

Abstract:Travel-planning agents generate itineraries that may become infeasible after acceptance because of flight cancellations, hotel unavailability, or attraction closures. Revising these itineraries involves full replanning, classical plan repair, and LLM-based travel-agent revision, whose differing task formulations and evaluation protocols hinder comparison. We conduct a systematic empirical study using two TREK-derived benchmark sets: 500 single-disruption cases, including feasible and infeasible instances, and 200 feasible simultaneous compound-disruption cases. We compare LLM-Z3 full replanning, IPyHOPPER hierarchical repair, and an iTIMO local-revision adapter across effectiveness, plan stability, and computational cost. LLM-Z3 with Gemini achieved the highest observed compound-disruption success. IPyHOPPER nearly matched that configuration's single-disruption overall success, while preserving substantially more of the accepted itinerary on successful repairs. Successful hierarchical and local repairs made fewer edits and retained more accepted commitments than full replanning. Computational profiles differed: IPyHOPPER used no LLM inference, the evaluated LLM-Z3 adapter used compact one-call inference, and the iTIMO adapter consumed substantially more tokens. The study provides practical guidelines for balancing feasibility recovery, commitment preservation, and computational cost within evaluated settings.

Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Multiagent Systems (cs.MA)

arXiv:2609.19654 [cs.AI]

(or arXiv:2609.19654v1 [cs.AI] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.19654 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 285 words

Related coverage