ItinBench: Benchmarking Planning Across Multiple Cognitive Dimensions with Large Language Models

Travel planning serves as a critical task for long-horizon reasoning, exposing significant deficits in LLMs. However, existing benchmarks and evaluations primarily assess final plans in an end-to-end manner, which lacks interpretability and makes it difficult to analyze the root causes of failures. To bridge this gap, we decompose travel planning into five constituent atomic sub-capabilities, including Constraint Extraction, Tool Use, Plan Generation, Error Identification, and Error Correction. We implement a decoupled evaluation protocol leveraging oracle intermediate contexts to rigorously isolate these components, thereby measuring the atomic performance boundary without the noise of cascading errors. Our results highlight a clear contrast in performance: while LLMs are proficient in extracting explicit constraints, they struggle to infer implicit, open-world requirements. Furthermore, they exhibit structural biases in plan generation and suffer from ineffective self-correction, characterized by excessive sensitivity and erroneous persistence. These findings offer precise directions for improving LLM reasoning and planning abilities.

Interactive travel planning has become a popular use case for language models. Agents are deployed to manage evolving preferences and unexpected disruptions over multiple turns. Such settings require models to make complex, profile-conditioned planning decisions. However, existing benchmarks often evaluate feasibility, personalization, or interaction in relatively isolated settings. We therefore introduce Trip+ to measure the ability of agents to plan travel holistically. In Trip+, given traveler profiles and dynamic interactions, agents must generate and revise minute-level itineraries. End-to-end traveler experiences are evaluated via an LLM-based simulator, enabling the assessment of subjective metrics like fatigue. Our scenarios range from simple request resolutions to complex environment-driven replanning. We evaluate 18 LMs and find a consistent gap in experiential quality. Models favor technically feasible but exhausting itineraries that diverge sharply from profiled traveler preferences.

The development of Large Language Models (LLMs) has significantly improved travel planning applications, yet evaluating such models is limited by existing benchmarks' limitations: 1) overemphasis on constraint compliance, neglecting multi-dimensional qualities like spatio-temporal cost; 2) datasets lacking real-world authenticity and coverage in key areas (e.g., lodging, transport); and 3) isolated daily plan assessments that miss critical details (e.g., the impact of daily accommodation and visit pacing) needed for entire plan's evaluation. To address this gap, we introduce TravelEval, a realistic and comprehensive benchmark. TravelEval features 1) a novel six-dimensional evaluation framework to holistically assess plans across accuracy, compliance, temporality, spatiality, economy, and utility dimensions; 2) a highly realistic data sandbox with precise accommodation pricing and authentic intercity transportation data; and 3) a simulation-based global evaluation method that emulates complete travel plans with API-integrated geographic information and fine-grained queuing time. Evaluating 12 mainstream approaches with TravelEval reveals several valuable insights, such that LLMs struggle with globally-optimized multi-dimensional planning (especially in spatio-temporal reasoning and budget compliance), and agentic reasoning strategies offer no consistent improvement. Concisely, TravelEval facilitates travel plan evaluation via grounded spatio-temporal emulation and comprehensive metrics, providing a robust foundation for advancing LLM-powered travel planning research and applications.