Apodex 1.1: Scaling Agentic Intelligence for Complex Work
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.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
What coordination failures limit multi-agent LLM systems as they scale?- How does the agentic layer amplify individual agent failure modes?
- What breaks when multiple agents share and revise the same artifacts?
- How do single-agent safety evaluations underestimate risks in deployed multi-agent systems?
- How do agent-created code artifacts become part of harness infrastructure?
- What makes agent-initiated artifacts the underexplored frontier in harness engineering?
- How do you verify agent code under incomplete feedback signals?
- Why do agents report success when they have actually failed at tasks?
- Can automated evaluation replace human judgment in agent testing?
- What tasks do AI agents still fail at most often?
- Why do completion-mode strengths not transfer to agentic settings?
- How do mode-specific failures differ between completion and agent benchmarks?
- When should you optimize agent behavior versus tool performance separately?
- How does the execution layer constrain agent performance in tool use?
- How much does agent performance depend on demonstration quantity versus curation quality?
- Why do 85 percent of production agents avoid third-party frameworks?
- Should agent capability be optimized separately from general capability?