TravelEval: A Comprehensive Benchmarking Framework for Evaluating LLM-Powered Travel Planning Agents

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.

When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee?

The volume of scientific submissions continues to climb, outpacing the capacity of qualified human referees and stretching editorial timelines. At the same time, modern large language models (LLMs) offer impressive capabilities in summarization, fact checking, and literature triage, making the integration of AI into peer review increasingly attractive -- and, in practice, unavoidable. Yet early deployments and informal adoption have exposed acute failure modes. Recent incidents have revealed that hidden prompt injections embedded in manuscripts can steer LLM-generated reviews toward unjustifiably positive judgments. Complementary studies have also demonstrated brittleness to adversarial phrasing, authority and length biases, and hallucinated claims. These episodes raise a central question for scholarly communication: when AI reviews science, can we trust the AI referee? This paper provides a security- and reliability-centered analysis of AI peer review. We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level. We instantiate this taxonomy with four treatment-control probes on a stratified set of ICLR 2025 submissions, using two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores. Together, this taxonomy and experimental audit provide an evidence-based baseline for assessing and tracking the reliability of AI peer review and highlight concrete failure points to guide targeted, testable mitigations.