While Large Language Models (LLMs) have empowered AI research agents to perform isolated scientific tasks, automating complex, real-world workflows, such as LLM training, remains a significant challenge. In this paper, we introduce TREX, a multi-agent system that automates the entire LLM training life-cycle. By orchestrating collaboration between two core modules-the Researcher and the Executor-the system seamlessly performs requirement analysis, open-domain literature and data research, formulation of training strategies, preparation of data recipes, and model training and evaluation. The multi-round experimental process is modeled as a search tree, enabling the system to efficiently plan exploration paths, reuse historical results, and distill high-level insights from iterative trials. To evaluate the capability of automated LLM training, we construct FT-Bench, a benchmark comprising 10 tasks derived from real-world scenarios, ranging from optimizing fundamental model capabilities to enhancing performance on domain-specific tasks. Experimental results demonstrate that the TREX agent consistently optimizes model performance on target tasks.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of TREX research progress on molecule generation. Top Left: The system takes the task definition as input, including task descriptions, benchmarks, and other information. Top Right: The model performance improves as TREX’s automated research progresses. Bottom left: Details of the key steps. Bottom right: Comparison of TREX (based on Qwen3-1.7B) with human-expert fine-tuned models based on Llama-series baselines.
Figure 2: The TREX framework. The system performs task-driven model optimization through iterative experimentation. The experimental trajectory is modeled as a tree, with node expansion guided by MCTS policy. Each iteration is driven by dual-agent collaboration: The Researcher designs the experimental plan and delegates the specific steps to the Executor . The Executor performs data processing, model training, and evaluation on a GPU cluster and returns empirical results to the Researcher for diagnostics. To support this workflow, the agents are equipped with a tailored toolset to access external knowledge and resources, and leverage condensed memory contexts to preserve the continuity and efficiency of the iterative process.
Molecule generation : edit, optimize, and generate molecules following textual instructions
oMeBench [ 49 ]
Chemical Mechanism Reasoning : predict stepwise intermediates and electron-transfer steps for organic reactions
HoC [ 1 ]
Cancer Hallmark Classification : assign cancer hallmark labels to biomedical publication abstracts
CS-Bench [ 39 ]
Computer Science Proficiency Evaluation : answer knowledge and reasoning questions across 26 subfields of computer science
OpenFinData [ 8 ]
Financial Question Answering : solve real-world financial tasks including numerical calculation, knowledge retrieval, and chart understanding
Table 1: LLM fine-tuning tasks in FT-Bench. Detailed task definitions are provided in Appendix A.1
Benchmark
#Tasks (LLM-FT / Total)
Evaluation Focus
MLAgentBench [ 14 ]
0/13
End-to-end machine learning experimentation with iterative model development and code refinement.
ScienceAgentBench [ 4 ]
0/102
Fine-grained scientific workflow tasks derived from real research across multiple disciplines.
RE-Bench [ 47 ]
1/7
Open-ended machine learning research engineering tasks with direct comparison to human experts.
MLEBench [ 2 ]
2/75
Real-world machine learning engineering tasks from Kaggle competitions with human leaderboard baselines.
MLGymBench [ 32 ]
0/13
AI research tasks spanning multiple domains, with a Gym-style interface and supporting RL-based agent training.
FT-Bench (ours)
10/10
End-to-end LLM fine-tuning tasks derived from real-world research and application scenarios.
Table 2: Comparison of benchmarks for autonomous research systems.
Task
Metric †
Ref Model
Base Model
TREX
Qwen3-235B-2507
Qwen3-1.7B
w/ Qwen3-Next-80B-Thinking
w/ Gemini 3 Pro
ACI-Bench
Rouge-1
0.240
0.205
0.260 (+157%)
0.502 (+849%)
TOMG-Bench
Val. & Acc.
0.642
0.182
0.557 (+ 82%)
0.681 (+108%)
oMeBench
oMeScore
0.283
0.198
0.392 (+228%)
0.484 (+336%)
HoC
Macro-F1
0.645
0.462
0.896 (+237%)
0.897 (+238%)
CS-Bench
Acc.
0.853
0.532
0.572 (+ 12%)
0.581 (+ 15%)
Table 3: Performance of the TREX framework for autonomous LLM fine-tuning on FT-Bench. We employ Qwen3-1.7B as the base model across all 10 tasks and compare Qwen3-Next-80B-Thinking and Gemini 3 Pro as the Researcher backend. To mitigate variance in task difficulty and metric scales, relative gains (in parentheses) are normalized to the performance gap between a strong reference (Qwen3-235B-Thinking) and the base model.
Action Strategy
w/ Qwen3-Next-80B-Thinking
w/ Gemini 3 Pro
A
S
I
A
S
I
Establish Baseline
10
10
–
10
10
–
Refine Data Pipeline
117
86
9
91
76
16
Construct Synthetic Data
33
22
2
50
45
9
Adjust Training Scheme
50
39
6
59
52
13
Table 4: Frequency distribution of strategies proposed by TREX during the FT-Bench evaluation. (A: Attempts, S: Successes, I: Improvements)
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Category
Operator
Function Description
Loader
load_local_dataset
Imports datasets from local storage.
load_remote_dataset
Retrieves datasets from remote repositories (e.g., Hugging Face).
Scorer
compute_perplexity
Calculates text perplexity.
score_dataset_with_llm
Employs an LLM as a judge to evaluate data.
Generator
generate_text_embeddings
Computes dense vector representations for dataset entries.
generate_dataset_with_llm
Synthesizes Instruction-Response pairs from seed data.
Appendix
Table 5: Overview of Primitive Operators in AIDP. The toolkit provides a comprehensive set of operators for data ingestion, formation, analysis, synthesis, and selection.
Figure 7: Comparative performance trajectories of iterative experimental refinement using distinct LLM engines for tasks oMeBench, ACI-Bench, GTA, and HOC. The left panel illustrates the score progression with Gemini 3 pro as the Researcher, while the right panel depicts the corresponding progression with Qwen3-next-80b-thinking.
Figure 8: Comparative performance trajectories of iterative experimental refinement using distinct LLM engines for the task LawBench and EconlogicQA, SST-2 and CS-Bench. The left panel illustrates the score progression with Gemini 3 pro as the Researcher, while the right panel depicts the corresponding progression with Qwen3-next-80b-thinking.
Effectively configuring scalable large language model (LLM) experiments, spanning architecture design, hyperparameter tuning, and beyond, is crucial for advancing LLM research, as poor configuration choices can waste substantial computational resources and prevent models from realizing their full potential. Prior automated methods are designed for low-cost settings where repeated trial and error is feasible, but scalable LLM experiments are too expensive for such extensive iteration. To our knowledge, no work has addressed the automation of high-cost LLM experiment configurations, leaving this problem labor-intensive and dependent on expert intuition. Motivated by this gap, we propose AutoLLMResearch, an agentic framework that mimics how human researchers learn generalizable principles from low-fidelity experiments and extrapolate to efficiently identify promising configurations in expensive LLM settings. The core challenge is how to enable an agent to learn, through interaction with a multi-fidelity experimental environment that captures the structure of the LLM configuration landscape. To achieve this, we propose a systematic framework with two key components: 1) LLMConfig-Gym, a multi-fidelity environment encompassing four critical LLM experiment tasks, supported by over one million GPU hours of verifiable experiment outcomes; 2) A structured training pipeline that formulates configuration research as a long-horizon Markov Decision Process and accordingly incentivizes cross-fidelity extrapolation reasoning. Extensive evaluation against diverse strong baselines on held-out experiments demonstrates the effectiveness, generalization, and interpretability of our framework, supporting its potential as a practical and general solution for scalable real-world LLM experiment automation.
AI agents have become surprisingly proficient at software engineering over the past year, largely due to improvements in reasoning capabilities. This raises a deeper question: can these systems extend their capabilities to automate AI research itself? In this paper, we explore post-training, the critical phase that turns base LLMs into useful assistants. We introduce PostTrainBench to benchmark how well LLM agents can perform post-training autonomously under bounded compute constraints (10 hours on one H100 GPU). We ask frontier agents (e.g., Claude Code with Opus 4.6) to optimize the performance of a base LLM on a particular benchmark (e.g., Qwen3-4B on AIME). Importantly, we do not provide any predefined strategies to the agents and instead give them full autonomy to find necessary information on the web, run experiments, and curate data. We find that frontier agents make substantial progress but generally lag behind instruction-tuned LLMs from leading providers: 23.2% for the best agent vs. 51.1% for official instruction-tuned models. However, agents can exceed instruction-tuned models in targeted scenarios: GPT-5.1 Codex Max achieves 89% on BFCL with Gemma-3-4B vs. 67% for the official model. We also observe several failure modes worth flagging. Agents sometimes engage in reward hacking: training on the test set, downloading existing instruction-tuned checkpoints instead of training their own, and using API keys they find to generate synthetic data without authorization. These behaviors are concerning and highlight the importance of careful sandboxing as these systems become more capable. Overall, we hope PostTrainBench will be useful for tracking progress in AI R&D automation and for studying the risks that come with it. Website and code are available at https://posttrainbench.com/.
Ben Rank, Hardik Bhatnagar, Ameya Prabhu +4
ELLIS Institute Tübingen · Max Planck Institute for Intelligent Systems · Tübingen AI Center +2
Producing task-specific large language models requires discovering effective training strategies through experimentation. Automated fine-tuning systems have made this experimentation feasible with far less manual effort. However, these systems are stateless: each search discards its discovered strategies, dataset insights, and hyperparameter findings once it ends. Every new task must then repeat this costly search from a cold start. To address this, we propose Strategy Accumulation and Guided Execution (SAGE), a two-stage framework that makes automated fine-tuning search cumulative. In the first stage, a multi-agent pipeline performs Monte Carlo Tree Search-based exploration. A parallel Distillation Agent extracts task-specific exploration records and confidence-scored cross-task insights, which together constitute a structured experience repository. In the second stage, SAGE retrieves relevant experience from this repository and selects what applies to guide training on the new task. We evaluate SAGE on nine unseen tasks spanning both single- and cross-category settings. In single-round execution, SAGE's accumulated experience raises the average relative improvement over baseline from 3.2% to 15.6%, a 12.4-percentage-point gain over the same pipeline without it. These results show that persistent strategy experience provides effective guidance for automated fine-tuning on unseen tasks.
Haoran Zhao, Wei Du, Dingwen Yang +7
Fudan University · Ant Group · Shanghai Jiaotong University