Apodex 1.1: Scaling Agentic Intelligence for Complex Work
Authors: B. An, B. Li, B. Wang, B. Zhang, B. L. Wang, C. Feng, C. Wei, C. Xue, C. Zhang, D. Ng, D. Ye, E. Min, F. Chen, F. Liu, F. Yang, F. Ye, G. Sun, H. Ji, H. Xu, H. Yang, H. Ye, H. Zhang, H. Zhao, J. Li, J. Lin, J. Xia, K. Jin, K. Wang, K. Yang, L. Bing, L. Lei, L. Su, Le. Wang, Lu. Wang, N. Wang, Q. Ren, Q. Yang, R. Li, S. Bai, S. Du, S. Li, S. Lin, S. Nie, S. Wang, S. Zhang, S. Z. Wang, T. Ge, Ta. Q. Fang, Ti. Q. Fang, W. Fang, W. Li, W. Zhang, X. Chen, X. Li, X. Tang, X. Wang, X. Xu, X. Zhang, X. Q. Wang, X. Y. Wang, Y. Deng, Y. Gao, Y. Hu, Y. Li, Y. Sui, Y. Wang, Y. Xiao, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhou, Z. Chen, Z. Cheng, Z. Feng, Z. Liang, Z. Liu, Z. Zhang
General-purpose language models can reason and synthesize knowledge, but complex work also requires sustained interaction with files, information sources, and executable code, together with state maintenance, failure recovery, and verifiable delivery. We call this working capability: sustained, verifiable progress toward a real-world objective. Apodex 1.1 develops this capability along two complementary dimensions. Environment Scaling expands the diversity and verifiability of executable file, search, and code environments, while Agentic Coordination Scaling trains agents to decompose long-horizon tasks, delegate parallel work, integrate asynchronous results, and replan. A shared execution harness and AgentOS maintain task state and provenance across tools and agents, and training turns environment trajectories and coordination traces into reliable behavior. Across complex professional work, finance, scientific research, mathematics, coding, and search, Apodex 1.1 reaches the leading performance band despite using a substantially smaller model than many frontier systems. The 35B-parameter Apodex 1.1 Mini further retains strong working capability in a locally deployable form. These results ground agentic intelligence in useful, verifiable work completed over time and advance our goal of building a Heavy-Duty Solver for ambitious, long-running tasks.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: The controlled capability-development loop. Environment Scaling and Agentic Coordination Scaling create the executable trajectories used by training; evaluation, real failures, and human feedback determine which capability gaps the next Task Pipeline should target.
Family
Construction
Verification boundary
Role
File worlds
Profession-conditioned multi-format workspaces
Code-derived values or recorded provenance
Authority and transformation
Search worlds
Indexed or open evidence sources
Provenance + claim review
Discovery and evidence alignment
Code worlds
Repositories and stateful sandboxes
Tests + artifact checks
Executable transformation
Table 1: Environment families and their assurance boundaries. “Exact” means code-derived or independently reconciled , not accepted solely from a language-model judge.
Concern
Failure mode
Mechanism
Workspace state
Ambiguous ownership or backend-dependent visibility
Stable three-region namespace with explicit private/shared workspace topology
Reference library
Durable user documents exposed to mutation
Read-only /shares mount, configured by the deployment
Coordination state
Plan and completion state disappear during compaction
External task board, periodic re-injection, and finalization gate
Live intervention
A follow-up waits behind a long fan-in operation or races a report
Message-addressable queue, interruptible waits, delivery acknowledgement, and lease renewal
Context pressure
Estimate-driven compaction fires too early or too late
Provider-reported trigger, tool-result eviction, and conditional LLM summary
Budget enforcement
Hard cancellation discards work in flight
Shared soft/hard budget, deadline-clamped waits, and bounded report recovery
Table 2: AgentOS 1.1 mechanisms and the failure modes they address.
(a) Professional Work
Models
APEX-Agents
GDPVal
DeepSeek-V4-Pro ( DeepSeek-AI, 2026 )
24.3
71.2
Gemini-3.1-Pro ( Google, 2026a )
32.0
–
Claude-Opus-4.6 ( Anthropic, 2026d )
33.0
–
GPT-5.4 ( OpenAI, 2026c )
33.3
–
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 ( DeepSeek-AI, 2026 )
34.4
72.7
Table 3: Performance on professional work, finance, and business simulation benchmarks. Bold indicates the best reported result in each benchmark column. Apodex results are grouped below the horizontal rule. All GDPVal entries report win rate; all external-model GDPVal results shown here are our reproductions under the Apodex harness. The Claude Opus 5 APEX-Agents result is likewise reproduced internally. YC-Bench ( He et al., 2025 ) reports mean final net worth in USD; external YC-Bench results are taken from its official leaderboard. The DeepSeek V4 entries on FrontierFinance are internally reproduced under the stated benchmark metric; the remaining external FrontierFinance entries are reported reference results. † YC-Bench uses the benchmark’s default agent configuration; no separate Agent Team result is reported.
(a) Scientific Research
Models
FrontierScience Research
BioMysteryBench Human-difficult Set
Gemini-3.1-Pro ( Google, 2026a )
16.7
–
Claude-Opus-4.5 ( Anthropic, 2025a )
17.5
–
Claude-Opus-4.7 ( Anthropic, 2026e )
20.0
27.0
GPT-5.2 ( OpenAI, 2026b )
25.2
–
Seed2.1-Turbo ( ByteDance Seed Team, 2026 )
33.3
–
Table 4: Performance on scientific-research, general-reasoning, and deep-search benchmarks. Bold indicates the best reported result in each benchmark column. Apodex results are grouped below the horizontal rule. DeepSearchQA reports F1, and BioMysteryBench uses the Human-difficult subset.
Models
FrontierFinance
FrontierScience Research
APEX-Agents
Proprietary models
Gemini-3.1-Pro ( Google, 2026a )
30.5
16.7
32.0
GPT-5.6-Sol ( OpenAI, 2026a )
46.8
–
39.9
Qwen3.7-Plus ( Qwen Team, 2026 )
–
–
22.4
Muse-Spark-1.0 ( Meta AI, 2026 )
–
38.0
–
Open-weight models
Table 5: Model-scale-efficient agentic performance of Apodex mini models (35B parameters). Models are grouped by availability; Apodex results appear below the final rule. Dashes denote unavailable matched results. Bold indicates the best result in each benchmark column among the selected comparison rows.
Models
IMO 2025
IMO 2026
USAMO 2026
ProofBench Basic
ProofBench Advanced
Reference threshold
35
29
25
–
–
Apodex 1.0 w/ Agent Team
12.5
13.0
5.8
63.3
20.0
Apodex 1.1 w/ ReAct
24.3
18.5
16.0
80.0
46.4
Apodex 1.1 w/ Agent Team
36.5
30.5
26.5
96.7
63.3
Table 6: Mathematical reasoning results on competition-level proof tasks. IMO 2025, IMO 2026, and USAMO 2026 are scored under the MathArena protocol.
Benchmark
Model
Score ↑
Terminal-Bench 2.1
Gemini 3.6 Flash
91.9
Kimi K3
88.3
DeepSeek V4 Flash 0731
82.7
Claude Opus 5
77.3
Apodex 1.1
70.8
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Opus 5
92.2
Table 7: Coding-agent results on Terminal-Bench 2.1 and SWE-bench Verified. One result is retained per model on each benchmark; where multiple settings are available, the highest reported score is shown.
Model
Positive (%) ↑
Zero (%) ↓
Negative (%) ↓
Avg. score ↑
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731 ( DeepSeek-AI, 2026 )
75.6
19.5
4.9
54.9
Kimi-K3 ( Team et al., 2026 )
75.6
22.0
2.4
60.1
DeepSeek-V4-Pro ( DeepSeek-AI, 2026 )
85.4
14.6
0.0
61.3
Claude-Opus-5 ( Anthropic, 2026g )
85.4
12.2
2.4
64.4
GPT-5.6-Sol ( OpenAI, 2026a )
85.4
14.6
0.0
67.4
Apodex 1.1 w/ ReAct
75.6
19.5
4.9
57.0
Table 8: FrontierSearchBench results: mean normalized task score over 41 tasks on a 100-point scale, with the proportion of tasks scored positive, zero, and negative. Negative aggregate scores are possible. Column best values are in bold.
Model
Harness
Pass Rate (%) ↑
GPT-5.6-Sol
Codex
20.6
Grok-4.6
Claude Code
20.6
Kimi-K3
Claude Code
17.5
Claude-Opus-5
Claude Code
17.5
Qwen3.8-Max
Claude Code
15.5
DeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731
Claude Code
12.4
Table 9: FrontierResearchBench results. Pass Rate is the fraction of tasks awarded full score. Column best values are in bold.
Figure 5: The HDS6 capability taxonomy and process-grading pipeline. The six capability groups contain four rubric items each; an integrity gate is applied independently of the weighted rubric.
Figure 6: HDS6 comparisons between Apodex v1.0 and v1.1 across three evaluation settings. In Deep Discover, v1.0 uses the 397B Agent Team with eight-run aggregation, whereas v1.1 uses a single run. C1–C6 follow the process-capability taxonomy in Figure 5 ; comparisons are intended within, rather than across, panels.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Table 10: Twenty required deliverables plus three auxiliary files. Every TSV row count was read back from the published file.
We study parallel test-time scaling for long-horizon agentic tasks such as agentic search and deep research, where multiple rollouts are generated in parallel and aggregated into a final response. While such scaling has proven effective for chain-of-thought reasoning, agentic tasks pose unique challenges: trajectories are long, multi-turn, and tool-augmented, and outputs are often open-ended. Aggregating only final answers discards rich information from trajectories, while concatenating all trajectories exceeds the model's context window. To address this, we propose AggAgent, an aggregation agent that treats parallel trajectories as an environment. We equip it with lightweight tools to inspect candidate solutions and search across trajectories, enabling it to navigate and synthesize information on demand. Across six benchmarks and three model families (GLM-4.7, Qwen3.5, MiniMax-M2.5), AggAgent outperforms all existing aggregation methods-by up to 5.3% absolute on average and 10.3% on two deep research tasks-while adding minimal overhead, as the aggregation cost remains bounded by a single agentic rollout. Our findings establish agentic aggregation as an effective and cost-efficient approach to parallel test-time scaling.
Yoonsang Lee, Howard Yen, Xi Ye +1
Princeton Language and Intelligence, Princeton University
Scaling supervised training for working agents requires diverse professional tasks that yield reliable expert demonstrations. However, missing or inconsistent task information can obstruct teacher execution and weaken the resulting supervision. We propose WorkFactory, a scalable framework for constructing coherent and executable professional tasks. Starting from professional intents, information-level planning builds an information support graph to guide task instantiation, explicitly representing the dependencies and locations of information required for the intended outputs. Probe executions then identify support failures and guide repairs while preserving the intended work. We construct 112,686 tasks spanning 612 occupations and use the collected teacher trajectories to fine-tune Qwen models at 4B, 27B, and 35B-A3B scales, yielding the WorkPilot family. All three models improve over their respective base models across four professional-work benchmarks, with WorkPilot-35B-A3B improving from 879 to 1565 Elo on GDPval-AA v2.1. Scaling analyses reveal model-dependent diminishing returns, with execution length first increasing and then decreasing. Controlled component analyses show that planning and repair reduce probe-diagnosed task environment defects and improve downstream performance. The data and models are available at https://github.com/IQuestLab/WorkFactory.
Ziyang Zeng, Tingyang Chen, Jia Deng +10
IQuest Research · Zhejiang University · Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China +3
Large language model agents have advanced rapidly, yet progress remains fragmented across domains, capabilities, task difficulty, and interaction settings. We frame this as full-scenario agentic scaling and present AgentOmnia, a framework coordinating task-space definition, data synthesis, post-training, evaluation, and improvement across To-Consumer (ToC), To-Business (ToB), and To-Employee (ToE) applications. An extensible Domain x Capability x Atomic Difficulty taxonomy aligns these stages and enables fine-grained diagnosis with OmniaBench. AgentOmnia combines bidirectional environment-task synthesis with tool-dependency, program-structured, and solver-based pipelines, constructing 5,018 stateful environments with 255,375 tools and 52,361 tasks. Programs, solvers, and verifiers provide correctness signals, while supervised fine-tuning, online agentic reinforcement learning, and a rollback curriculum support post-training. Evaluation failures translate into Product Requirement Documents (PRDs) for targeted self-evolution. Starting from Qwen3-30B-A3B-Thinking-2507, AgentOmnia raises the pass rate on the OmniaBench challenging subset from 9.16% to 37.11% and the macro-average across OmniaBench, τ2-Bench, DeepPlanning, and VitaBench from 22.86% to 41.69%. Under a unified protocol,it leads the evaluated agentic post-trained baselines on OmniaBench and retains the highest four-benchmark macro-average. It also surpasses Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 on all four benchmarks and exceeds Qwen3.5-35B-A3B on the macro-average. Gains span three application splits, ten capability dimensions, eight atomic-difficulty factors, and 76 of 90 level-1 domains, indicating broad rather than category-specific improvement. A one-round study provides initial evidence for PRD-guided self-evolution, motivating validation at larger scales and in industrial settings.