Multi-Agent Computer Use

Computer-use agents provide a promising path toward general software automation because they can interact directly with arbitrary graphical user interfaces instead of relying on brittle, application-specific integrations. Despite recent advances in benchmark performance, strong computer-use agents remain expensive and slow in practice, since most systems invoke large multimodal models at nearly every interaction step. We argue that this uniform allocation of compute is fundamentally inefficient for long-horizon GUI tasks. Such trajectories are highly heterogeneous: many steps are routine and can be handled reliably by smaller, cheaper policies, while errors tend to concentrate at a relatively small number of high-risk moments. Across computer-use benchmarks, these failures repeatedly take two forms: progress stalls, where the agent loops, repeats ineffective actions, or fails to make meaningful progress, and silent semantic drift, where the agent continues taking locally plausible actions after already deviating from the user's true goal. To address this inefficiency, we propose an event-driven, step-level cascade for computer-use agents that runs a small policy by default and escalates to a stronger model only when lightweight learned monitors detect elevated risk. Our framework combines two complementary signals: a Stuck Monitor that detects degraded progress from recent reasoning-action history and triggers recovery, and a Milestone Monitor that identifies semantically meaningful checkpoints where sparse verification is most informative for catching drift. This design turns always-on frontier-model inference into adaptive, on-demand compute allocation over the course of an evolving interaction. The framework is modular and deployment-oriented: it can be layered on top of existing computer-use agents without changing the underlying agent architecture or retraining the large model.

Native computer use offers a general interface for agents to operate almost any software available to people, but requires long-horizon state tracking, large-scale interactive experience, and learning from sparse yet verifiable outcomes. We introduce Qwen-CUA, a native computer-use agent with a 397B-A17B Qwen mixture-of-experts backbone. It observes only screenshots and acts through keyboard and mouse events, without DOM trees, accessibility metadata, or task-specific APIs. Its scaffold maintains up to 20 active screenshots and folds older visual history in fixed-size blocks to retain recent evidence while preserving reusable prompt prefixes. For training, we build a cloud rollout fleet with access to nearly 100,000 vCPUs and tens of thousands of concurrent environments, construct approximately 40,000 verifiable tasks, and collect personalized long-horizon workflows across everyday and professional software. We optimize complete trajectories with verifiable rewards and trajectory slicing, while iterative training runs refresh supervised data and recalibrate reinforcement-learning tasks. Across eight benchmarks, Qwen-CUA outperforms Qwen3.7 and remains competitive with leading proprietary systems, reaching 86.2 on OSWorld-Verified and 18.5/48.4 binary/partial completion on OSWorld 2.0. Scaling the same recipe to a model with over one trillion parameters yields Qwen-CUA-Max, improving these scores to 87.6 and 21.2/53.3. Qwen-CUA also reduces RedTeamCUA attack success from 36.6 to 16.4 relative to Qwen3.7. Efficiency analyses, a browser deployment, and Bash-augmented experiments further characterize practical behavior. These results establish native computer use as a broadly capable agent foundation and highlight scalable verifiable interaction and hybrid tool use as key directions.

Existing computer-use benchmarks fail to capture the realism, complexity, and long-horizon demands of real-world computer use, limiting their ability to reveal the limitations of frontier agents. We introduce OSWorld 2.0, a benchmark of 108 long-horizon computer-use workflows across everyday and professional tasks, designed to capture complex and challenging real-world phenomena. Each task represents a realistic end-to-end workflow that takes human users a median of about 1.6 hours to complete and requires an average of 318 tool calls with Claude Opus 4.7 using maximum thinking, compared with about 30 in OSWorld 1.0. OSWorld 2.0 targets challenge phenomena that are common in real workflows yet underrepresented in prior benchmarks, spanning interaction-design challenges such as streaming interaction and dynamic environments, as well as agent-pattern challenges such as cross-source reasoning, implicit-state inference, and visual-spatial precision. Tasks are grounded in authentic input artifacts and cross-referenced against realistic stateful user profile data, and include separate safety reports auditing safety-sensitive execution. Under our primary binary-completion metric at 500 steps, Claude Opus 4.8 with maximum thinking and batched tool calls scores best but still completes only 20.6% of tasks at a 54.8% partial score; GPT-5.5 is far more token-efficient yet plateaus near 13%. These results show that current agents are still far from professional-level computer use: rather than stumbling on basic GUI control or coding, they lose track of constraints, miss information that arrives mid-task, guess rather than ask the user, and skip verification, struggling most when a task hinges on hidden state they must recover.