Data World: Scaling Data Environments from Scratch
Authors: Zhanli Li, Zeyuan Xu, Chaoxu Pang, Zeyuan Liu, Anyang Ji, Te Sun, Kongcheng Zhang, Wenbo Xu, Xubin Yue, Shipeng Luo, Junjie Zhao, Yingfan Hua, Jingqing Ruan, Zhongda Su, Feng Hong, Zhizhao Zeng, Ke Zeng, Xunliang Cai, Hanjia Ye
Organizations: Longcat Interaction Team, Meituan · Zhongnan University of Economics and Law · Hunan University · School of Artificial Intelligence, Nanjing University · National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Zhejiang University · Nanjing University · Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences · The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Data agents use code to process heterogeneous files and derive analytical insights. Scaling their training faces costly environment curation, privacy and intellectual-property restrictions, and difficulty verifying open-ended findings without known generative truth. Our core insight is to specify the world behind the files before generating the files themselves. We introduce Data World, a multi-agent engine that synthesizes environments, tasks, and rubrics from explicit mechanisms. Independent audits check target recoverability from observed files; rubrics support evaluation and RL rewards. Human preference-based curation for question realism selects 100 tasks across 50 held-out worlds and 16 domains for DataWorld-Bench. The engine also yields 2,135 training tasks from 1,037 disjoint worlds. Evaluation of ten frontier models shows that the benchmark remains challenging, particularly for insight discovery, with a consistent computation-insight gap. RL-zero training on the synthesized tasks produces DataWorld-35B-A3B from Qwen3.6-35B-A3B without trajectory distillation. Under matched evaluation, it improves over its base by 7.06 points on DataWorld-Bench, 14.28 on DAComp, 20.90 on DABstep-Hard, and 12.13 on JobBench, a broader occupational benchmark.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Supervision for data agents: exploration-based synthesis (top) versus Data World (bottom). Exploring existing files may leave valid findings without matching criteria; Data World specifies mechanisms first, aligning files and rubrics with analytical targets.
Figure 2: Data World synthesis and evaluation pipeline. A dependency DAG and world contract guide layer-wise canonical-state generation; observation projection produces analyst-visible files. An independent auditor checks relationships, invariants, and target recoverability. The generative record grounds tasks and rubrics; the data agent solves tasks from observed files, and a separate evaluator grades its report.
Figure 3: Taxonomy shares (%) of the DataWorld-Bench test tasks and Data World RL training tasks.
Score
Interaction and length
Model
Data computation
Insight discovery
Avg
Rounds
Total tokens (k)
Resp. tokens (k)
GPT-6-Astra
87.80 (16.38)
66.45 (20.98)
74.43 (15.85)
28.7 (8.7)
121.9 k (36.4)
88.8 k (18.9)
Qwen-3.8-Max-0902
82.36 (17.79)
67.95 (22.92)
73.43 (16.81)
82.7 (23.5)
289.7 k (81.9)
125.8 k (33.0)
GPT-6.1-Sol
85.59 (17.26)
66.02 (21.02)
73.30 (16.44)
31.2 (10.6)
135.2 k (46.3)
103.4 k (30.4)
GLM 5.3
75.08 (21.22)
63.18 (21.56)
67.69 (17.67)
89.9 (28.0)
238.7 k (96.6)
116.3 k (49.4)
HY4-Preview
77.27 (20.63)
60.00 (21.38)
66.55 (17.72)
70.7 (21.3)
177.9 k (49.2)
86.0 k (23.3)
Table 1: DataWorld-Bench results (normalized rubric scores ×100 , with SD in parentheses). Avg pools all rubric items and need not equal the mean of the two section columns. Best/second-best means are bold / underlined . Rounds count model calls; tokens are prompt plus output of the final call (total) or outputs over the run (response).
Neg. rubric items (%)
Model
0
1
2
GPT-6.1-Sol
86
11
2
GPT-6-Astra
83
14
2
HY4-Preview
74
20
5
Kimi-K3
70
20
9
Qwen-3.8-Max-0902
68
26
5
Table 2: Distribution of triggered negative rubric items across trajectories. Each column gives the percentage of trajectories triggering exactly that many negative items; 3+ is omitted.
JobBench
DAComp
DABstep-Hard
DataWorld-Bench
Model
Score
Rounds
Resp. tokens (k)
Score
Rounds
Resp. tokens (k)
Score
Rounds
Resp. tokens (k)
Score
Rounds
Resp. tokens (k)
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
18.31 (18.12)
38.7 (17.4)
60.4 k (22.1)
+53.72 (20.35)
35.6 (17.7)
41.8 k (19.6)
+25.66 (43.73)
28.6 (18.0)
15.1 k (15.3)
37.64 (11.62)
36.5 (13.9)
38.4 k (19.2)
DataMind-35B-A3B
22.93 (22.33) (+4.63)
36.6 (12.7)
73.9 k (28.0)
+54.79 (20.49) (+1.07)
37.6 (14.1)
47.7 k (19.0)
+31.22 (46.40) (+5.56)
40.3 (17.6)
26.3 k (16.8)
37.36 (11.14) (-0.29)
34.4 (9.6)
42.0 k (17.2)
BigBang-v1
20.84 (20.69) (+2.53)
68.9 (23.4)
84.3 k (30.1)
+54.31 (20.93) (+0.58)
45.1 (22.9)
38.2 k (18.4)
+34.66 (47.65) (+8.99)
37.2 (24.5)
35.5 k (34.0)
40.05 (12.06) (+2.41)
58.4 (27.8)
46.7 k (18.1)
Occamy-1.0
30.18 (23.79) (+11.87)
79.2 (41.7)
96.4 k (38.9)
+64.86 (20.89) (+11.13)
49.1 (22.5)
45.4 k (21.6)
+44.44 (49.76) (+18.78)
31.0 (21.3)
26.3 k (28.4)
42.38 (14.06) (+4.74)
61.5 (25.8)
58.2 k (28.3)
DataWorld-35B-A3B
30.43 (23.92) (+12.13)
63.6 (28.9)
88.1 k (29.1)
+68.00 (18.90) (+14.28)
78.4 (25.0)
65.9 k (21.7)
+46.56 (49.95) (+20.90)
43.2 (22.3)
36.3 k (28.0)
44.70 (13.94) (+7.06)
102.8 (22.6)
68.4 k (17.6)
Table 3: RL training utility: DataWorld-35B-A3B paired per task against its base Qwen3.6-35B-A3B (mean with SD in parentheses). Green/red badges indicate gains/losses relative to the base.
Model
MMLU-Pro
LCB-Hard
SimpleQA-V
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
84.73
71.14
22.20
DataWorld-35B-A3B
84.73
70.29
24.00
Table 4: General-capability and factuality checks for DataWorld-35B-A3B versus Qwen3.6-35B-A3B. MMLU-Pro and LiveCodeBench (LCB)-Hard report accuracy (%); SimpleQA-Verified (SimpleQA-V) reports F1. Higher is better.
Figure 4: Performance as RL training scales over synthesized tasks. Base is the pre-RL model; scores are unscaled, with final gains over Base annotated in points and, where applicable, relative percentages.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Taxonomy category
Model
Com
Cus
Fin
Ops
HR
Risk
Clin
Epi
Bio
Sci
Env
Enrg
Pol
Edu
Soc
Tran
Avg
GPT-6-Astra
69.96
77.25
79.79
84.91
65.68
73.12
71.73
70.54
83.31
85.53
64.22
77.27
68.46
72.65
77.60
69.77
74.43
Qwen-3.8-Max-0902
78.58
81.23
73.15
80.35
77.81
65.23
76.70
73.68
76.08
77.98
60.82
88.12
68.99
62.23
76.15
58.28
73.43
GPT-6.1-Sol
76.20
77.60
79.59
76.93
57.45
69.65
74.14
69.81
74.41
92.71
66.50
80.69
68.25
67.10
75.00
67.90
73.30
GLM 5.3
71.95
69.50
71.62
75.45
73.97
69.53
62.54
68.52
78.43
68.81
50.27
75.91
64.35
58.02
75.16
47.68
67.69
HY4-Preview
67.65
64.90
76.25
73.26
65.97
54.39
63.98
62.10
70.51
68.05
65.86
79.36
62.50
59.23
75.29
53.88
66.55
Appendix
Table 5: Per-domain scores, following Table 1 . Avg pools all 100 test tasks. The bottom row averages domain offsets after removing each model’s mean. Each domain has only 6 – 8 tasks, so individual cells should not be used to rank models. Domain abbreviations are defined in Section A.3.3 .
Score ( ×100 )
Paired cause − consequence test
Model
Cause
Consequence
Δ
MDE
GPT-6-Astra
76.32
72.54
+3.78
9.30
Qwen-3.8-Max-0902
75.32
71.53
+3.80
8.79
GPT-6.1-Sol
73.33
73.27
+0.07
8.87
GLM 5.3
66.05
69.33
−3.28
9.06
HY4-Preview
68.02
65.08
+2.94
9.81
Appendix
Table 6: Cause versus consequence scores (50 tasks each), following Table 1 . Δ = cause − consequence. MDE uses same-world pairs. No model’s Δ reaches its MDE.
Setting
Value
Training / rollout GPUs
48 / 64 H20-3e GPUs (6 / 8 eight-GPU nodes)
Training parallelism
TP 2, CP 4, PP 1, EP 8, ETP 1
Derived data parallelism
DP =48/(2×4×1)=6
Rollout engines
64 one-GPU SGLang engines (TP 1)
Rollout batch size
24 prompts
Samples per prompt
8
Appendix
Table 7: RL training resources and settings for the training and rollout workers.
Large language models are increasingly expected to serve as general-purpose agents that interact with external, stateful tool environments. The Model Context Protocol (MCP) and broader agent skills offer a unified interface for connecting agents with scalable real-world services, but training robust agents remains limited by the lack of realistic environments and principled mechanisms for life-long learning. In this paper, we present Agent-World, a self-evolving training arena for advancing general agent intelligence through scalable environments. Agent-World has two main components: (1) Agentic Environment-Task Discovery, which autonomously explores topic-aligned databases and executable tool ecosystems from thousands of real-world environment themes and synthesizes verifiable tasks with controllable difficulty; and (2) Continuous Self-Evolving Agent Training, which combines multi-environment reinforcement learning with a self-evolving agent arena that automatically identifies capability gaps through dynamic task synthesis and drives targeted learning, enabling the co-evolution of agent policies and environments. Across 23 challenging agent benchmarks, Agent-World-8B and 14B consistently outperforms strong proprietary models and environment scaling baselines. Further analyses reveal scaling trends in relation to environment diversity and self-evolution rounds, offering insights for building general agent intelligence.
Automatically generated environments provide a scalable source of interaction data for training general agents. However, existing approaches mainly generate tasks within a single environment, while real-world workflows require agents to connect information and actions across multiple services. We introduce Compositional Environment Scaling (CompoWorld), which expands the task space by composing a finite library of reusable services. Coding agents turn tool specifications into verified services with typed states and shared interfaces, while a world model handles tools that cannot be reliably implemented. A random-walk procedure connects services through dependency graphs, enabling the generation and verification of tasks that require information to flow across services. Verified trajectories support supervised fine-tuning (SFT), while our Completion-Focused Rubric Reward guides reinforcement learning (RL) toward full task completion by emphasizing criteria with lower pass rates within each rollout group. We construct 448 services exposing 10,130 tools and use 3K SFT trajectories and 1K RL tasks to train Qwen3.6-35B-A3B. Experimental results show that CompoWorld improves on its backbone by 9.17 points on average across eight benchmarks. On AutomationBench, it surpasses frontier models such as Claude Opus 4.6 and leads all compared agent-specialized 35B-A3B models.
Terminal agents extend Large Language Models with the ability to execute tasks directly in command-line environments, but their progress is bottlenecked by the scarcity of high-quality training data. Existing approaches bootstrap from partial sources such as human-defined seeds or GitHub repositories to instantiate one component and then complete the rest, producing tasks confined to narrow seed distributions, environments misaligned with task semantics, and inefficient trajectories from unguided exploration. To address these limitations, we introduce Terminal-World, a fully automated pipeline that uses agent skills as the central synthesis primitive, which jointly encode what to accomplish, when to apply (preconditions and environment state), and how to execute, enabling task instructions, environments, and teacher trajectories to be co-derived. To further broaden the synthesis space, Terminal-World composes skills into skill teams and skill graphs for multi-role and cross-domain task synthesis. Using this pipeline, we construct 5,723 training environments and train Terminal-World-8B/14B/32B, evaluated across 6 benchmarks where the Terminal-World series consistently outperforms terminal-agent baselines. Notably, using the same teacher model and only 1.2% of the training data, Terminal-World-32B surpasses Nemotron-Terminal-32B on Terminal-Bench 2.0 by +4.5 Pass@1 (31.5) and achieves 43.8 Pass@3.
Zihao Cheng, Hongru Wang, Zeming Liu +6
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China · Independent Researcher · 3Beijing Institute of Technology +2