Large Language Models (LLMs) based autonomous agents demonstrate multifaceted capabilities to contribute substantially to economic production. However, existing benchmarks remain focused on single agentic capability, failing to capture long-horizon real-world scenarios. Moreover, the reliance on human-in-the-loop feedback for realistic tasks creates a scalability bottleneck, hindering automated rollout collection and evaluation. To bridge this gap, we introduce AgencyBench, a comprehensive benchmark derived from daily AI usage, evaluating 6 core agentic capabilities across 32 real-world scenarios, comprising 138 tasks with specific queries, deliverables, and rubrics. These scenarios require an average of 90 tool calls, 1 million tokens, and hours of execution time to resolve. To enable automated evaluation, we employ a user simulation agent to provide iterative feedback, and a Docker sandbox to conduct visual and functional rubric-based assessment. Experiments reveal that closed-source models significantly outperform open-source models (48.4% vs 32.1%). Further analysis reveals significant disparities across models in resource efficiency, feedback-driven self-correction, and specific tool-use preferences.

High-quality scientific data is critical for advancing LLMs, yet academic literature remains largely underutilized. This work addresses the fundamental question: How can we systematically unlock scientific data’s value for pre-training? First, we construct a large-scale raw scientific corpus but identify a critical Learnability Gap, revealing that direct pre-training yields negligible gains. To bridge this, we develop a multi-stage pipeline featuring content cleaning and pedagogical augmentation, resulting in SciPedia, a 900B-token corpus. Finally, we establish a controlled verification framework: we develop SciPedia-Eval benchmark and conduct 600B tokens of continued pre-training (CPT) starting from transparent base models (3B/7B) trained from scratch. Compared to a CPT baseline trained with general-purpose data, our approach with SciPedia data boosts average performance by +2.12 (3B) and +2.95 (7B), reaching +5.60 and +8.40 on in-domain tasks. This setup further allows us to derive empirical guidelines for data composition and model configurations.