Multimodal abductive reasoning — the generation and selection of explanatory hypotheses from partial observations — is a cornerstone of intelligence. Current evaluations of such ability in vision–language models (VLMs) are largely confined to static, single-agent tasks. Inspired by Dixit, we introduce DixitWorld, a comprehensive evaluation suite designed to deconstruct this challenge. DixitWorld features two core components: DixitArena, a dynamic, multi-agent environment that evaluates both hypothesis generation (a "storyteller" crafting cryptic clues) and hypothesis selection ("listeners" choosing the target image from decoys) under imperfect information; and DixitBench, a static QA benchmark that isolates the listener’s task for efficient, controlled evaluation. Results from DixitArena reveal distinct, role-dependent behaviors: smaller open-source models often excel as creative storytellers, producing imaginative yet less discriminative clues, whereas larger proprietary models demonstrate superior overall performance, particularly as listeners. Performance on DixitBench strongly correlates with listener results in DixitArena, validating it as a reliable proxy for hypothesis selection. Our findings reveal a key trade-off between generative creativity and discriminative understanding in multimodal abductive reasoning, a central challenge for developing more balanced and capable vision-language agents.

Current evaluations of Large Language Model (LLM) agents primarily emphasize task completion, often overlooking resource efficiency and adaptability. This neglects a crucial capability: agents’ ability to devise and adjust cost-optimal plans in response to changing environments. To bridge this gap, we introduce **CostBench**, a scalable, cost-centric benchmark designed to evaluate agents’ economic reasoning and replanning abilities. Situated in the travel-planning domain, CostBench comprises tasks solvable via multiple sequences of atomic and composite tools with diverse, customizable costs. It also supports four types of dynamic blocking events, such as tool failures and cost changes, to simulate real-world unpredictability and necessitate agents to adapt in real time. Evaluating leading open-sourced and proprietary models on CostBench reveals a substantial gap in cost-aware planning: agents frequently fail to identify cost-optimal solutions in static settings, with even *GPT-5* achieving less than 75% exact match rate on the hardest tasks, and performance further drops significantly under dynamic conditions. By diagnosing these weaknesses, CostBench lays the groundwork for developing future agents that are both economically rational and robust.

Large reasoning models ( e.g., R1, o3) have demonstrated remarkable mathematical problem-solving abilities. However, the high reported accuracy of these advanced models on popular datasets and reliance on purely numerical evaluation often mask their true reasoning shortcomings. To address this, we propose leveraging the inherent rigor and methodological complexity of mathematical proofs as a diagnostic tool to expose these hidden failures. Specifically, we introduce the RFMDataset (Reveal Failure Modes), a collection of 200 diverse mathematical proof problems to thoroughly evaluate the performance of advanced models. Our in-depth analysis of their failures uncovers 10 fine-grained error types, which shows fundamental limitations in current large reasoning models: 1) Large reasoning models still have limited capability in generating entirely correct mathematical proofs, with some models solving less than 20% of problems and even making mistakes on fundamental ones; 2) models exhibit a diverse spectrum of reasoning failures, prominently demonstrating the lack of guarantees for the correctness and rigor intermediate reasoning steps; and 3) models show hallucination and incompleteness during the reasoning process. Our findings also reveal that directly prompting models to self-reflect on specific failure modes is insufficient to resolve the current logical dilemmas, necessitating domain knowledge and formal verification.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in high-stakes domains, accurately assessing their confidence is crucial. Humans typically express confidence through epistemic markers (e.g., “fairly confident”) instead of numerical values. However, it remains unclear whether LLMs consistently use these markers to reflect their intrinsic confidence due to the difficulty of quantifying uncertainty associated with various markers. To address this gap, we first define ***marker confidence*** as the observed accuracy when a model employs an epistemic marker. We evaluate its stability across multiple question-answering datasets in both in-distribution and out-of-distribution settings for open-source and proprietary LLMs. Our results show that while markers generalize well within the same distribution, their confidence is inconsistent in out-of-distribution scenarios. These findings raise significant concerns about the reliability of epistemic markers for confidence estimation, underscoring the need for improved alignment between marker based confidence and actual model uncertainty. Our code is available at https://github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/MarCon.

In the information era, the vast proliferation of online content poses significant challenges, particularly concerning the trustworthiness of these digital statements, which can have profound societal implications. Although it is possible to manually annotate and verify the authenticity of such content, the sheer volume and rapid pace of information generation render this approach impractical, both in terms of time and cost. Therefore, it is imperative to develop automated systems capable of validating online claims, ensuring that users can use the wealth of information available on the Internet effectively and reliably. Using primarily ChatGPT and the Google search API, GProofT fact checking framework generates question-answer pairs to systematically extract and verify the facts within claims. Based on the outcomes of these QA pairs, claims are subsequently labeled as Supported, Conflicted Evidence/Cherry-Picking, or Refuted. Shown by extensive experiments, GProofT Retrieval generally performs effectively in fact-checking and makes a substantial contribution to the task. Our code is released on https://github.com/HKUST-KnowComp/GProofT.