Travel planning is a natural real-world task to test large language models’ (LLMs) planning and tool-use abilities. Although prior work has studied LLM performance on travel planning, existing settings still differ from real-world needs, mainly due to limited domain coverage, insufficient modeling of users’ implicit preferences in multi-turn conversations, and a lack of evaluation of agents’ capability boundaries. To mitigate these gaps, we propose \mbox{\textbf{TravelBench}}, a benchmark for truly real-world travel planning. We collect user queries, user preferences, and tools from real scenarios, and construct three subtasks—Single-Turn, Multi-Turn, and Unsolvable—to evaluate agents’ three core capabilities in real settings: (1) solving problems independently, (2) interacting with users to elicit implicit preferences, and (3) recognizing the capability boundaries. To enable stable tool invocation and reproducible evaluation, we cache real tool-call results and build a sandbox environment which integrates ten travel-related tools, enabling agents to combine these tools to solve most practical travel planning problems. We evaluate multiple LLMs on TravelBench and find that even advanced models exhibit imbalanced performance across different capabilities. Our further systematic verification demonstrates the stability of the proposed benchmark. TravelBench provides a practical and reproducible benchmark to advance research on LLM agents for real-world travel planning.

In-Context Learning (ICL) is an essential emergent ability of Large Language Models (LLMs), and recent studies introduce CoT to exemplars of ICL to enhance the reasoning capability, especially in mathematics tasks. However, given the continuous advancement of model capabilities, it remains unclear whether CoT exemplars still benefit recent, stronger models in such tasks. Through systematic experiments, we find that for recent strong models such as the Qwen2.5 series, adding traditional CoT exemplars does not improve reasoning performance compared to Zero-Shot CoT. Instead, their primary function is to align the output format with human expectations. We further investigate the effectiveness of enhanced CoT exemplars, constructed using answers from advanced models such as Qwen2.5-Max and DeepSeek-R1. Experimental results indicate that these enhanced exemplars still fail to improve the model’s reasoning performance. Further analysis reveals that models tend to ignore the exemplars and focus primarily on the instructions, leading to no observable gain in reasoning ability. Overall, our findings highlight the limitations of the current ICL+CoT framework in mathematical reasoning, calling for a re-examination of the ICL paradigm and the definition of exemplars.

Knowledge graphs (KGs) often suffer from sparseness and incompleteness. Knowledge graph reasoning provides a feasible way to address such problems. Recent studies on knowledge graph reasoning have shown that reinforcement learning (RL) based methods can provide state-of-the-art performance. However, existing RL-based methods require numerous trials for path-finding and rely heavily on meticulous reward engineering to fit specific dataset, which is inefficient and laborious to apply to fast-evolving KGs. To this end, in this paper, we present DIVINE, a novel plug-and-play framework based on generative adversarial imitation learning for enhancing existing RL-based methods. DIVINE guides the path-finding process, and learns reasoning policies and reward functions self-adaptively through imitating the demonstrations automatically sampled from KGs. Experimental results on two benchmark datasets show that our framework improves the performance of existing RL-based methods while eliminating extra reward engineering.