Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 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

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

classification cs.MA
keywords fraudplanningreal-worldframeworksdatamulti-agentreliablerisk
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X LinkedIn Reddit HN
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 with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

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

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5

    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. Personalization Meets Safety:Mechanisms,Risks,and Mitigations in Personalized LLMs

    cs.AI 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    A survey that maps safety risks in personalized LLMs, introduces a unified taxonomy, and highlights three structural inadequacies in existing research on user-invariant safety, isolated techniques, and short-term evaluations.