We introduce OvisOCR3, a 0.8B model for a broad range of OCR-related tasks. OvisOCR3 unifies document parsing, general OCR, key information extraction (KIE), document figure captioning, and cross-page table reconstruction in a single model. We train the model on real and synthetic data through continued pretraining and use domain-balanced mid-training to balance supervision across tasks with different data volumes and response lengths. Multi-teacher on-policy distillation transfers expertise from five domain-specific 4B teachers into the shared model, followed by mixed-task reinforcement learning with domain-specific rewards. We compare OvisOCR3 with general-purpose vision-language models and specialized OCR models on public and in-house benchmarks covering all five task families. In these comparisons, it achieves an overall score of 96.74 on OmniDocBench v1.6 and the highest overall scores on PureDocBench, Real5-OmniDocBench, and MDPBench. On OCRBench v2, it ranks first, scoring 65.9 and 61.3 on the English and Chinese splits, respectively. It also outperforms the baselines on OCRBench and all four KIE benchmarks. On DocFigCapBench, it achieves the highest localization F1 and a caption score close to that of Qwen3.8-Max. For cross-page tables, it leads in Relation F1 on CrossTabBench and truncated-table TEDS on MPDocBench-Parse. These results demonstrate that a compact 0.8B model can achieve strong performance across diverse OCR-related tasks. OvisOCR3 is available at https://huggingface.co/ATH-MaaS/OvisOCR3.
Computer-use agents (CUAs) are commonly evaluated against fixed task specifications, but users may omit requirements, add constraints, or require approval before consequential actions. Completing the benchmark instruction does not guarantee serving the person who asked. We introduce PersonaCUABench, which holds 74 tasks across 11 domains fixed and varies only who asks. A persona agent, playing one of 44 personas in four groups, rewrites each instruction in that user's own words and answers the CUA's questions, while the CUA sees only the dialogue, never the profile or the original instruction. Across nine backbones (3,330 runs), mean task completion falls by 36% relative to the original requests. The losses have two sources: in 59.9% of cells that lose points, the agent engages with what the user asked for and still gets it wrong, and 11.2% are stops the user requested that the checker scores as failures. Even when a persona request is fully completed, the user gives the top satisfaction rating in only 62.7% of cells, against 84.1% for the original requests. CUAs should therefore be evaluated not only on task completion but also on whether they meet the requirements and constraints users express. Code: https://github.com/MatrAIx-ai/PersonaCUABench. Project page: https://matraix.ai/research/persona-cua.html