HiMAP-Travel: Hierarchical Multi-Agent Planning for Long-Horizon Constrained Travel
Organizations: Singapore Management University
Abstract
Sequential LLM agents fail on long-horizon planning with hard constraints like budgets and diversity requirements. As planning progresses and context grows, these agents drift from global constraints. We propose HiMAP-Travel, a hierarchical multi-agent framework that splits planning into strategic coordination and parallel day-level execution. A Coordinator allocates resources across days, while Day Executors plan independently in parallel. Three key mechanisms enable this: a transactional monitor enforcing budget and uniqueness constraints across parallel agents, a bargaining protocol allowing agents to reject infeasible sub-goals and trigger re-planning, and a single policy trained with GRPO that powers all agents through role conditioning. On TravelPlanner, HiMAP-Travel with Qwen3-8B achieves 52.78% validation and 52.65% test Final Pass Rate (FPR). In a controlled comparison with identical model, training, and tools, it outperforms the sequential DeepTravel baseline by +8.67pp. It also surpasses ATLAS by +17.65pp and MTP by +10.0~pp. On FlexTravelBench multi-turn scenarios, it achieves 44.34% (2-turn) and 37.42% (3-turn) FPR while reducing latency 2.5x through parallelization.
Figures & tables
| Method | Hierarchical | Parallel | Context | Global | Iterative | RL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (Coord/Work) | Execution | Isolation | Verifier/CM | Refine/Neg. | Trained | |
| ReAct ( Yao et al., 2022 ) | ||||||
| Reflexion ( Shinn et al., 2023 ) | ✓ | |||||
| PMC ( Dang et al., 2025 ) | ✓ | |||||
| EvoAgent ( Yuan et al., 2025 ) | ✓ | |||||
| HIPLAN ( Li et al., 2025 ) | ✓ | ✓ |
| Day | Sequential | HiMAP | Improvement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Day 1 | 98% | 99% | +1 pp |
| Day 3 | 76% | 95% | +19 pp |
| Day 5 | 42% | 91% | +49 pp |
| Average | 73.2% | 95.0% | +21.8 pp |
| Metric | DeepTravel | HiMAP-Travel |
|---|---|---|
| Final Pass Rate | 43.98% | 52.65% |
| Commonsense Micro | 93.28% | 94.62% |
| Commonsense Macro | 60.62% | 67.00% |
| Hard Constraint Micro | 45.66% | 50.47% |
| Hard Constraint Macro | 60.12% | 66.05% |
| Constraint-Level Analysis: | ||
| Validation (180 queries) | Test (1000 queries) | ||||||||||
| Method | Delivery | Commonsense | Hard Constr. | FPR | Commonsense | Hard Constr. | FPR | ||||
| Micro | Macro | Micro | Macro | Micro | Macro | Micro | Macro | ||||
| Multi-Agent Frameworks (Published Results) | |||||||||||
| MTP (GPT-4 w/ hint) | 96.7/97.4 | 87.29 | 43.33 | 47.14 | 46.67 | 33.33 | 91.46 | 50.00 | 53.96 | 45.12 | 42.68 |
| ATLAS (Gemini-2.5-Pro) | 100/100 | 48.33 | 88.54 | 82.62 | 74.44 | 44.44 | 85.81 | 40.50 | 77.64 | 70.60 | 35.00 |
| Sequential RL Baseline (Our Evaluation) | |||||||||||
| Scenario | Method | Delivery | Commonsense | Hard Constraint | Final Pass | ||
| Micro | Macro | Micro | Macro | ||||
| 2-Turn Local: Add local constraint (Cuisine, Room rule, or Room type) in Turn 2 | |||||||
| Local Add Avg (#189) | ReAct (GPT-4) | 100.00 | 85.84 | 44.41 | 67.29 | 43.72 | 29.58 |
| ATLAS (Gemini-2.5-Pro) | 100.00 | 75.48 | 59.80 | 77.23 | 64.62 | 38.86 | |
| HiMAP-Travel (4B) | 100.00 | 76.80 | 61.25 | 79.15 | 66.50 | 41.25 | |
| HiMAP-Travel (8B) | 100.00 | 78.62 | 62.15 | 80.35 | 67.40 | 44.96 | |
| Method | Latency (s) | Compute (s) | Tokens (k) |
|---|---|---|---|
| ReAct (Qwen3-8B) | 180 | 180 | 12.5 |
| DeepTravel (4B) | 165 | 165 | 11.8 |
| DeepTravel (8B) | 190 | 190 | 12.3 |
| HiMAP-Travel (4B) | 48 | 120 | 13.8 |
| HiMAP-Travel (8B) | 72 | 210 | 14.2 |
| Configuration | FPR | |
|---|---|---|
| Full System | 52.78% | — |
| w/o Synchronized Monitor | 43.2% | -9.58 pp |
| w/o Coordinator | 39.8% | -12.98 pp |
| w/o Bargaining | 48.9% | -3.88 pp |
| w/o Parallelism | 45.6% | -7.18 pp |
Appendix figures & tables30 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| State Fields | Description |
|---|---|
| Global budget cap and cumulative spend | |
| Set of visited venues (restaurants, attractions) | |
| Inter-city transport mode lock | |
| Operations | Semantics |
| check(action) | Validate action against ; return OK or error code |
| commit(action) | Atomically update if valid; otherwise reject with error code |
| Tool Name | Agent Type | Function |
| Coordinator Tools | ||
| information_extractor | Coordinator | Parses natural language query into structured task tuple containing origin, destination, days, budget, people, house rules, cuisine, room type, transportation restrictions, and dates |
| distribute_task | Coordinator | Implements hierarchical decomposition with city assignments, budget hints satisfying , day types (departure/stay/travel/return), and globally selected ground transportation mode |
| Day Planner Search Tools | ||
| city_search | Day Planner | Returns all cities in a specified state from the TravelPlanner city database, sorted alphabetically |
| flight_search | Day Planner | Queries flight database by origin, destination, and date; returns flight numbers, times, and prices sorted by ascending cost |
| Benchmark | Statistic | Value |
|---|---|---|
| TravelPlanner (single-turn planning) | ||
| TravelPlanner | Splits (train/val/test) | 45 / 180 / 1,000 |
| TravelPlanner | Trip duration | 3 / 5 / 7 days |
| TravelPlanner | Budget range | 23,800 |
| TravelPlanner | Group size range | 1–8 people |
| TravelPlanner | Constraints | 13 total (8 commonsense, 5 hard) |
| Training | Validation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constraint Count | Count | % | Count | % |
| 2–3 constraints | 18 | 40.0 | 72 | 40.0 |
| 4 constraints | 17 | 37.8 | 68 | 37.8 |
| 5+ constraints (Hard) | 10 | 22.2 | 40 | 22.2 |
| Statistic | Train (45) | Validation (180) |
|---|---|---|
| Mean Duration (days) | 5.00 1.63 | 5.00 1.63 |
| Mean Group Size | 2.67 1.86 | 2.46 1.80 |
| Mean Budget ($) | 5,669 4,556 | 5,296 4,414 |
| Budget Range ($) | 900–19,400 | 900–23,800 |
| Mean Cities Visited | 1.67 0.85 | 1.69 0.87 |
| Constraint Coverage | 100% | 100% |
| Constraint | Validation Rule |
|---|---|
| Commonsense Constraints (8 total) | |
| is_not_absent | All days must specify current_city , transportation , meals ( breakfast / lunch / dinner ), attraction , accommodation ; fields may be “-” (intentional omission) but not null |
| is_valid_information_in_sandbox | All venue names must exist in TravelPlanner databases with fuzzy name matching (substring containment) but strict city-state equality; detects hallucinated venues |
| is_valid_information_in_current_city | All activities must occur in current_city for that day; on travel days (“ from City1(State1) to City2(State2) ”), activities permitted in either city |
| is_reasonable_visiting_city | First city reachable from origin, last city connects back to origin for return, intermediate cities in destination state for multi-city trips |
| is_valid_restaurants | No restaurant may appear twice across all meals for all days; exact string matching on “ Name, City(State) ” format |
| Difficulty Tier | Complexity Range | Train | Valid |
|---|---|---|---|
| Easy | 9.0–20.0 | 15 (33.3%) | 60 (33.3%) |
| Medium | 20.1–45.0 | 15 (33.3%) | 60 (33.3%) |
| Hard | 45.1–63.0 | 15 (33.3%) | 60 (33.3%) |
| Overall Mean Std | – | 34.0 22.2 | 34.0 22.2 |
| Phase | Sequential | HiMAP | Speedup | % of Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (DeepTravel) | (Parallel) | (HiMAP) | ||
| Coordinator Planning | — | 8.2 1.4 | — | 11.4% |
| Day Planning (Executors) | 145.3 22 | 52.1 8.3 | 2.79 | 72.4% |
| Model Inference | 98.7 | 35.4 | 2.79 | 49.2% |
| Tool I/O (DB queries) | 46.6 | 16.7 | 2.79 | 23.2% |
| Bargaining Iterations | — | 7.8 3.2 | — | 10.8% |
| Duration | Sequential | HiMAP | Speedup | Scaling |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (seconds) | (seconds) | Factor | ||
| 3 days | 98 15 | 48 7 | 2.04 | 1.0 |
| 5 days | 142 21 | 58 9 | 2.45 | 1.21 |
| 7 days | 190 28 | 72 12 | 2.64 | 1.50 |
| Growth Rate | Linear ( ) | Sub-linear | — | — |
| Model | Sequential | HiMAP | Speedup |
|---|---|---|---|
| Qwen3-4B | 165 19 | 48 6 | 3.44 |
| Qwen3-8B | 190 28 | 72 12 | 2.64 |
| Constraint | 4B Val | 8B Val | Category | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commonsense Constraints | ||||
| Diverse Attractions | 100.00 | 100.00 | 0.00 | Strong |
| Diverse Restaurants | 99.86 | 99.93 | +0.07 | Strong |
| Non-conflicting Transport | 99.17 | 99.58 | +0.41 | Strong |
| Reasonable City Route | 98.19 | 98.75 | +0.56 | Strong |
| Complete Information | 92.10 | 96.52 | +4.42 | Strong |
| Scenario | Model | Final Pass | Delivery | Commonsense | Commonsense | Hard Constraint |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rate (%) | Rate (%) | Micro (%) | Macro (%) | Macro (%) | ||
| 2-Turn Scenarios: Constraint Addition | ||||||
| Local Add | 4B | 41.25 | 100.00 | 76.80 | 61.25 | 66.50 |
| Local Add | 8B | 44.96 | 100.00 | 78.62 | 62.15 | 67.40 |
| Global Add | 4B | 40.85 | 100.00 | 68.20 | 70.15 | 71.20 |
| Global Add | 8B | 43.72 | 100.00 | 69.45 | 71.30 | 72.35 |
| Metric | 4B Val | 8B Val | 4B Test | 8B Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (180) | (180) | (1000) | (1000) | |
| Delivery Rate (%) | 100.0 0.0 | 100.0 0.0 | 100.0 0.0 | 100.0 0.0 |
| Commonsense Micro (%) | 95.57 2.15 | 95.64 0.18 | 94.72 0.25 | 94.62 0.16 |
| Commonsense Macro (%) | 72.36 2.15 | 73.61 0.79 | 66.03 1.50 | 67.00 0.48 |
| Hard Constraint Micro (%) | 70.89 1.54 | 76.85 0.52 | 46.44 0.84 | 50.47 0.80 |
| Hard Constraint Macro (%) | 59.17 2.08 | 63.33 0.83 | 63.45 1.26 | 66.05 1.01 |
| Metric | 4B Val | 4B Test | 8B Val | 8B Test |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Delivery Rate | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| Commonsense Micro | 95.57 | 94.72 | 95.64 | 94.62 |
| Commonsense Macro | 72.36 | 66.03 | 73.61 | 67.00 |
| Hard Constraint Micro | 70.89 | 46.44 | 76.85 | 50.47 |
| Hard Constraint Macro | 59.17 | 63.45 | 63.33 | 66.05 |
| Final Pass Rate | 48.61 | 49.80 | 52.78 | 52.65 |
| Model | Split | Method | Delivery | Comm. | Comm. | Hard | Hard | FPR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Micro | Macro | Micro | Macro | |||||
| Validation Set (180 queries) | ||||||||
| 4B | validation | DeepTravel | 96.81 1.94 | 90.00 2.22 | 59.58 8.82 | 63.15 3.76 | 49.44 4.04 | 35.28 7.38 |
| 4B | validation | HiMAP-Travel | 100.0 0.0 | 95.57 2.15 | 72.36 2.15 | 70.89 1.54 | 59.17 2.08 | 48.61 2.15 |
| 8B | validation | DeepTravel | 97.64 4.09 | 92.60 3.63 | 67.64 5.13 | 71.43 2.48 | 58.61 2.13 | 45.56 6.49 |
| 8B | validation | HiMAP-Travel | 100.0 0.0 | 95.64 0.18 | 73.61 0.79 | 76.85 0.52 | 63.33 0.83 | 52.78 0.79 |
| Tier | Method | Count | FPR | Budget | Diversity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Violation | Score | ||||
| Easy | DeepTravel | 333 | 61.3 8.5 | 2.8% | 94.2% |
| Easy | HiMAP-Travel | 333 | 72.4 1.2 | 1.9% | 97.1% |
| Improvement | – | +11.1 pp | -0.9 pp | +2.9 pp | |
| Medium | DeepTravel | 334 | 44.8 9.2 | 4.5% | 89.7% |
| Medium | HiMAP-Travel | 334 | 56.3 0.8 | 3.2% | 93.5% |
| Difficulty Tier | Count | Final Pass Rate | Budget Violation | Diversity Score | Avg. Latency (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Easy | 60 | 78.3% (47/60) | 2.1% | 94.7% | 58 |
| Medium | 60 | 65.0% (39/60) | 4.2% | 91.5% | 67 |
| Hard | 60 | 36.8% (22/60) | 4.1% | 87.2% | 72 |
| Overall | 180 | 52.78% | 4.1% | 92.0% | 68 |
| Constraint Type | Easy | Medium | Hard | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Budget Adherence | 97.9% | 96.3% | 91.2% | 95.2% |
| Cuisine Requirements | 95.8% | 89.7% | 82.7% | 89.4% |
| Room Type/Capacity | 96.2% | 92.1% | 87.3% | 91.7% |
| Restaurant Diversity | 97.1% | 93.2% | 78.3% | 92.3% |
| Attraction Diversity | 95.4% | 91.5% | 76.7% | 90.1% |
| Transportation Mode | 98.3% | 95.1% | 89.7% | 94.5% |
| Metric | Full System | w/o | (abs) | (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Performance | ||||
| Final Pass Rate | 52.78% | 41.2% | -11.58 | -21.9% |
| Hard Set FPR | 36.8% | 18.4% | -18.4 | -50.0% |
| Medium Set FPR | 65.0% | 52.8% | -12.2 | -18.8% |
| Easy Set FPR | 78.3% | 71.6% | -6.7 | -8.6% |
| Constraint Adherence |
| Metric | Full System | Flat MARL | (abs) | (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pass Rate Metrics | ||||
| Overall FPR | 52.78% | 38.5% | -14.28 | -27.1% |
| Hard Set FPR | 36.8% | 19.5% | -17.3 | -47.0% |
| Medium Set FPR | 65.0% | 48.3% | -16.7 | -25.7% |
| Easy Set FPR | 78.3% | 67.8% | -10.5 | -13.4% |
| Budget Management |
| Budget Tier | Budget/Day | Full System | Flat MARL | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| High-Cost City Selection (NYC, SF, LA) - Should Avoid | ||||
| Tight Budget ( $600/day) | 600 | 8.3% | 41.2% | +32.9 |
| Moderate Budget | 1000 | 22.1% | 38.7% | +16.6 |
| Ample Budget ( $1000/day) | $1000+ | 67.4% | 71.3% | +3.9 |
| Appropriate Cost-Tier Selection Rate | ||||
| Hard Queries (Tight) | — | 78.0% | 34.2% | -43.8 |
| Metric | Full System | w/o Bargaining | (abs) | (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pass Rate Performance | ||||
| Overall FPR | 52.78% | 48.9% | -3.88 | -7.4% |
| Hard Set FPR | 36.8% | 22.4% | -14.4 | -39.1% |
| Medium Set FPR | 65.0% | 58.7% | -6.3 | -9.7% |
| Easy Set FPR | 78.3% | 73.5% | -4.8 | -6.1% |
| Failure Mode Distribution |
| Configuration | Final Pass | Hard Constraint | Budget Viol. | Failure Mode |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HiMAP-Travel (Full System) | 52.78% | 36.8% | 4.1% | Balanced |
| Ablation 1: No Global State ( ) | 41.2% | 18.4% | 12.5% | High Duplication |
| Ablation 2: No Coordinator (Flat) | 38.5% | 19.5% | 28.4% | High Overspending |
| Ablation 3: No Bargaining | 48.9% | 22.4% | 15.2% | Infeasible Alloc. |
| Ablation 4: No Early Detect | 50.1% | 31.2% | 5.6% | High Latency |
| Iteration | Cumulative Success | Marginal Success | Total Attempts | Success Rate |
| Iteration 1 (No Feedback) | 111 / 180 | 111 | 180 | 61.7% |
| Iteration 2 (1st Feedback) | 162 / 180 | 51 | 69 | 73.9% |
| Iteration 3 (2nd Feedback) | 176 / 180 | 14 | 18 | 77.8% |
| Iteration 3+ (Failure) | 176 / 180 | 0 | 4 | 0.0% |
| Final Success Rate | 97.8% | — | — | — |
| Mean Iterations | 1.42 | — | — | — |
| Adaptation Type | Frequency | % | Success Rate | Avg. Latency (s) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| City Change | 47 | 66.2% | 78.7% | 26.3 |
| Route Reordering | 13 | 18.3% | 46.2% | 18.1 |
| Transport Mode Switch | 6 | 8.5% | 91.7% | 12.4 |
| Fewer Cities Visited | 5 | 7.0% | 100.0% | 15.7 |
| Total Adaptations | 71 | 100% | 74.6% | 23.1 |
| Failure Category | Count | % of | DeepTravel | HiMAP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Failures | Rate | Rate | ||
| Budget Overflow | 68 | 34.0% | 12.5% | 4.1% |
| Early overspend (Days 1-2) | 42 | 21.0% | 8.3% | 1.8% |
| Cumulative drift | 26 | 13.0% | 4.2% | 2.3% |
| Duplicate Venues | 47 | 23.5% | 8.7% | 1.5% |
| Restaurants | 31 | 15.5% | 5.8% | 0.9% |
| Day | City | Accommodation | Location | Issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Austin(TX) | Spacious Williamsburg 1BR | Austin, TX | Valid |
| 2 | Austin(TX) | Spacious Williamsburg 1BR | Austin, TX | Valid |
| 3 | Reno(NV) | (Return day) | — | — |
| Total Budget: 2,300 (53.5% utilization) | ||||
| Constraint Violation: Accommodation name references NYC borough despite Austin registration | ||||
| Day | Accommodation | Price/Night | Min. Nights | Issue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 100 Sq. Ft. Penthouse | $0 | 1 night | Invalid pricing |
| 2 | 1 BR in Carroll Gardens | $397 | 2 nights | Min. nights violated |
| 3 | (Return day) | — | — | — |
| Total Budget: 1,700 (35.9% utilization vs. 85–95% typical) | ||||
| Dual Failure: Invalid metadata + temporal constraint violation | ||||
| Day | City | Accommodation | Min. Nights | Actual Nights |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Asheville(NC) | FANTASTIC 1BR Columbus | 2 nights | 2 nights (✓) |
| 2 | Asheville(NC) | (Same as Day 1) | — | — |
| 3 | Charlotte(NC) | Luxury 2BR Williamsburg | 1 night | 1 night (✓) |
| 4 | Charlotte(NC) | Affordable Refurbished Room | 2 nights | 1 night (×) |
| 5 | Oklahoma City | (Return day) | — | — |
| Total Budget: 1,900 (86.4% utilization - otherwise successful plan) | ||||
| Primary Failure Mode | Count | % of Failures | Mean Budget Util. | Avg. Iterations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minimum Nights Violations | 87 | 13.7% | 48.3% | 1.2 |
| Budget Overruns | 201 | 31.6% | 107.4% | 2.8 |
| Diversity Constraint Violations | 143 | 22.4% | 89.1% | 1.9 |
| Sandbox Violations (Data Quality) | 41 | 6.4% | 72.6% | 1.4 |
| Incomplete Information Extraction | 63 | 9.9% | 65.2% | 1.1 |
| Transportation Inconsistencies | 28 | 4.4% | 81.3% | 1.6 |