CADWorld: Computer-Use Benchmark for Long-Horizon Computer-Aided Design

A CAD model is not engineering-grade merely because it looks correct. It must satisfy design requirements, respond predictably to parameter changes, support controlled edits, match a reference structural response under a declared analysis, and connect to other parts through valid joints. We present CADEngBench, a two-track benchmark for these capabilities. CADEngBench-P evaluates 300 parametric parts, each used for one zero-to-CAD task and one functional-editing task (600 tasks in total), through boundary-representation (B-Rep) validity, engineering and DFM checks, parameter-family perturbations, functional editing, and matched linear-static FEA in CalculiX. CADEngBench-A evaluates 150 body pairs through ranked joint retrieval, exact face-and-edge grounding, joint-frame prediction, and kinematic verification. Across eight multimodal, code-capable models, editing supplied CAD is substantially easier than generating it, while complex edits and matched FEA remain difficult. Assembly predictions often locate the relevant region but fail to recover the recorded joint or mating entities. These results show that CAD evaluation must test engineering behavior rather than appearance alone.

Autonomous agents have made rapid progress in general-purpose computer use, yet reliable automation of professional industrial engineering remains out of reach. Engineering workflows require reasoning over geometric and physical constraints and keeping dependencies consistent across software and design stages. We present EngiWorld, a benchmark designed around the capabilities that real engineering projects require, from operating a single application to solving engineering problems end to end. It contains 1,301 expert-curated tasks spanning six engineering domains (CAD, CAE, CAM, BIM, EDA, and DCC) and 26 professional software applications, with both GUI and CLI interfaces. The tasks are organized into six types, corresponding to capabilities that real engineering projects require. We further introduce an artifact-centric evaluation methodology built on a unified suite of domain verifiers. The verifiers programmatically check whether final and intermediate artifacts are geometrically valid, physically feasible, and compliant with design rules. Beyond binary success, they also score how well optimized designs meet their specifications. Evaluation of seven frontier models reveals a substantial capability gap: the strongest model scores only 44.7/100, and just 3.6% of runs on tasks that require cross-software coordination succeed. EngiWorld provides a rigorous foundation for measuring progress toward agents that operate professional engineering software end to end.

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.