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.