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

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. It comes from a paper posted to arXiv on 18 September 2026. 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 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.

Why it counts

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.

Sources

Primary source: primary source

What is not known

This brief does not claim independent replication. Claims that appear only on X and not in the primary source stay unknown.