AI Tour Meeting: Group Travel Planning by LLM Agents

arXiv:2607.188062026-07-20

A framework where multiple persona-driven LLM agents debate and vote to agree on a group travel itinerary

AI Tour Meeting is a framework in which several LLM agents, each given a distinct persona, alternate between discussion and voting to reach a group travel itinerary that satisfies everyone. The authors validated that the system runs reliably across Qwen3.5, gpt-oss and GPT-5.4-mini models of different sizes, then used it to study how preference conflict and speaking order affect the negotiation. Higher preference conflict led to longer meetings and lower satisfaction, while later speakers had their proposals accepted more often than the first speaker.

METAL MEDIA explanatory visual

How an AI Tour Meeting unfolds

Evidence statusMeasured results reported

SetupUser configures global goal, constraints (budget, time window), participant personas, and turn/voting rules before starting.
Conversation phaseParticipants take turns searching for info, asking questions, reflecting, and proposing new itineraries.
Voting phaseOnce an itinerary is proposed, the other participants accept, reject, or score it under the chosen voting rule.
Loop until consensusThe meeting alternates conversation and voting until all participants signal satisfaction with the current itinerary, or a turn/time limit is reached.
Validation and analysisCompletion and error rates are measured across models, and preference conflict/speaking order effects on negotiation outcomes are analyzed.

An explanatory diagram made by METAL MEDIA, not a figure supplied by the paper's authors.

What they did

LLM participants are instantiated with distinct personas (name, background, personality, preference, goal, role, tone, explanation style) and take turns performing actions like searching, asking, proposing, or voting to reach a shared itinerary.
The framework supports five turn rules (round robin, inviting, facilitating, random, parallel) and five voting rules (majority, unanimous, single decider, most pleasure, least misery), which can be combined flexibly for the conversation and voting phases.
System validation ran 50 synthetic meetings with Qwen3.5-2B/4B/9B, gpt-oss-20b, and gpt-5.4-mini instantiating the participants, measuring completion rate, consensus rate, constraint errors and action failures.
A preference-conflict analysis generated 50 meetings each for aligned, mixed, and conflicting preference settings using Qwen3.5-9B participants, tracking turns, proposals, consensus rate, and LLM-judged satisfaction scores.
A speaking-order analysis re-ran the same 50 meetings at each conflict level three times with rotated seating (Latin-square design) to measure how proposal acceptance rate varies by speaking position.

Figure 1: An overview of AI Tour Meeting. The user first configures the meeting settings, including the global goals, constraints, participants, and workflow, and then starts the meeting. The meeting alternates between conversation and voting phases whenever a new itinerary is proposed. Once all participants are satisfied with the currently accepted itinerary, the meeting concludes.

Table 1: System validation results across different models and model sizes. These results suggest that our framework requires an LLM with performance comparable to or higher than Qwen3.5-4B.
Model	Completion (%) ↑	Consensus (%)	Constraint err. (%) ↓	Action fail. (%) ↓	Turns	Duration11 1 Since meeting duration largely depends on the machine used to deploy the LLMs, these values are for reference only. (min)	Tokens [K] (in / out)	Usable
Qwen3.5-2B	82	58	14.2	1.3	61.5	72.5	7100 / 114	✗
Qwen3.5-4B	100	100	3.1	0.5	15.7	37.0	240 / 44	✓
Qwen3.5-9B	100	100	0.0	0.1	12.8	33.6	134 / 37	✓
gpt-oss-20b	100	100	0.4	0.2	20.4	11.8	315 / 25	✓
gpt-5.4-mini	100	80	0.0	0.1	34.5	6.3	535 / 40	✓

Figure 2: The graphical user interface of AI Tour Meeting. From left to right: the participant settings, the meeting settings, the ongoing meeting screen, and the analytics dashboard.

Table 2: Meeting results under controlled preference conflict among LLM participants.
	Aligned	Mixed	Conflicting
Turns	10.3±7.60	12.1±9.80	25.9±22.7
Proposals	2.3±2.30	2.7±2.50	6.5±5.30
Consensus rate	100%	100%	94%
Satisfaction	8.93±1.47	8.39±1.70	7.13±2.06
Victim rate	0.7%	1.3%	11.3%

Figure 4: Examples of consensus-building patterns.

Table 3: Additional system validation with Qwen3.5-9B across participant sizes M∈{3,5,10}
# Participants	Completion (%) ↑	Consensus (%)	Constraint err. (%) ↓	Action fail. (%) ↓	Turns	Duration (min)	Tokens [K] (in / out)	Validity
M=3	100	100	0.0	0.1	12.8	33.6	134 / 37	✓
M=5	100	100	1.6	0.8	25.4	149.3	659 / 99	✓
M=10	100	96	2.4	0.3	68.6	471.5	3074 / 406	✓

(b) A pattern of mediation by another participant.

Findings

All models except Qwen3.5-2B achieved a 100% completion rate (meeting ended via consensus or turn limit with at least one accepted itinerary), and constraint-error and action-failure rates decreased as model performance improved.
As preference conflict increased from aligned to mixed to conflicting, the number of turns and proposals grew, discussions got longer, consensus rate and average satisfaction (1-10 scale) dropped, and the 'victim rate' (share of participants scoring satisfaction 4 or lower) rose.
In the aligned setting there was no statistically significant difference in acceptance rate across speaking positions, but in mixed and conflicting settings, the second and third speakers' proposals were accepted significantly more often than the first speaker's.
Most accepted proposals from the first speaker followed an explicit question to other participants, whereas later speakers often had proposals accepted without asking, relying on information from the preceding discussion.
With Qwen3.5-9B evaluating meetings generated by GPT-5.4-mini, the framework maintained a 100% completion rate as participant count rose to 5 and 10, constraint-error rate rose only slightly (due to more destinations), and turn count grew somewhat faster than participant count.

Figure 5: Proposal acceptance rates by preference conflict level and speaking position. Error bars are Wilson 95% confidence intervals on the total rate.

Where it can be used

Simulating large numbers of group travel negotiations without human participants, to automatically evaluate group recommender systems.
Letting an LLM agent represent a friend or family member who cannot join a real planning session, so the group can incorporate their preferences via a conversational agent.
Serving as a research testbed for studying how factors like preference conflict or speaking order shape multi-agent group decision-making.

Figure 6: Chat boxes for human participants.

Limits and open work

System validation and analyses were run only with specific model families (Qwen3.5, gpt-oss, gpt-5.4-mini) and group sizes of 3-10, under fixed budget/time-window constraints, so generalization to other models, larger groups, or other travel scenarios is untested.
The framework reportedly requires an LLM at least as capable as Qwen3.5-4B to run reliably; smaller models like Qwen3.5-2B produced invalid actions such as referencing a nonexistent 'current route.'
The code is released under NTT's proprietary license restricted to research use, limiting commercial application.
Satisfaction scores come from an LLM-as-a-judge rather than real human evaluators, so alignment with actual human satisfaction is not verified.
The interactive mode allowing real human participants (Appendix C) is described functionally but without separate quantitative validation results.

Figure 7: Input context of a participant.

Why it matters

It lets researchers automatically and repeatedly simulate multi-party travel negotiations that would be costly to run with real human groups, supporting behavioral analysis and evaluation of group recommender systems. It also points toward practical uses where an LLM agent can stand in for a group member who cannot attend an actual planning session.

Terms in this paper

Persona · A configured profile (name, personality, preferences, goals, etc.) that an LLM role-plays as during the meeting.
LLM-as-a-judge · Using a separate large language model to score or evaluate outcomes such as participant satisfaction.
Round robin · A turn rule where participants speak in a fixed, repeating order.
Wilson 95% confidence interval · A statistical method for estimating the uncertainty range around a measured proportion.
vLLM · An open-source serving engine used to run local LLMs efficiently.

Original abstract (English)

This paper proposes AI Tour Meeting, a group travel planning framework powered by multiple Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents. The agents are instantiated with distinct personas and collaboratively seek an itinerary that satisfies their constraints and preferences through natural language discussion. The framework enables easy and flexible orchestration of such discussions by providing interfaces for configuring agent personas, discussion workflows, monitoring, and LLM deployment. Its prima

Authors · Daisuke Kikuta

Read on arXiv

Latest papers

All papers →

Latest from METAL MEDIA

NCT 127 drop BLINGY, their first full album in two years

Figures: Daisuke Kikuta et al., arXiv:2607.18806, CC BY 4.0