Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Is Your LLM-Based Multi-Agent a Reliable Real-World Planner? Exploring Fraud Detection in Travel Planning

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.16557 v2 pith:M2XXOK4I submitted 2025-05-22 cs.MA

classification cs.MA
keywords fraudplanningreal-worldframeworksdatamulti-agentreliablerisk
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The rise of Large Language Model-based Multi-Agent Planning has leveraged advanced frameworks to enable autonomous and collaborative task execution. Some systems rely on platforms like review sites and social media, which are prone to fraudulent information, such as fake reviews or misleading descriptions. This reliance poses risks, potentially causing financial losses and harming user experiences. To evaluate the risk of planning systems in real-world applications, we introduce \textbf{WandaPlan}, an evaluation environment mirroring real-world data and injected with deceptive content. We assess system performance across three fraud cases: Misinformation Fraud, Team-Coordinated Multi-Person Fraud, and Level-Escalating Multi-Round Fraud. We reveal significant weaknesses in existing frameworks that prioritize task efficiency over data authenticity. At the same time, we validate WandaPlan's generalizability, capable of assessing the risks of real-world open-source planning frameworks. To mitigate the risk of fraud, we propose integrating an anti-fraud agent, providing a solution for reliable planning.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. AISPA: User-Centric System Prompt Auditing for Large Language Model Applications

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

    A human-in-the-loop audit of system prompts from 88 commercial AI products finds protective instructions nearly universal yet incomplete, with ~40% of products containing at least one user-harmful directive.

  2. Frontier AI Risk Management Framework in Practice: A Risk Analysis Technical Report

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An evaluation of 18 frontier AI models across seven catastrophic-risk categories finds all models in green or yellow zones, with none crossing the report's proposed red lines.

  3. The Compositional Architecture of Regret in Large Language Models

    cs.CL 2025-06 reject novelty 5.0 of 10

    The paper claims that regret in LLMs is encoded by interacting neuron groups detectable in the final hidden layer, using new S-CDI, RDS, and GIC metrics.

Pith tools