Automated post-training transforms pre-trained large language models (LLMs) into models capable of handling diverse domains by automatically constructing and optimizing a recipe of coupled decisions over data sources, data processing, cross-domain composition, and training configuration under a limited experimental budget. Existing automation either searches predefined recipe spaces that enable systematic optimization but remain fixed rather than adapting their available choices to the target tasks, or uses open-ended agents that discover task-specific choices but leave them implicit in trial-level edits, limiting their systematic reuse and recombination across trials. To fill this gap, we introduce optimization over a task-adapted recipe space, a novel paradigm that can adapt the recipe space itself to the target tasks while representing its choices explicitly for systematic reuse, recombination, and joint optimization. We instantiate this paradigm with Structured Recipe Optimization (SRO), comprising an LLM-based Recipe-Space Designer that constructs the task-adapted recipe space and a Multi-Domain Recipe Optimizer that uses structured trial evidence to guide LLM candidate construction and multi-objective Bayesian trial selection. Extensive experiments show that SRO achieves the highest average score in all evaluated target-model and agent-LLM combinations. In joint post-training across three capability domains and six benchmarks, SRO reaches 41.1 versus 15.4 for the strongest baseline on Qwen3-1.7B with GPT-5.4, and 53.8 versus 40.8 on Qwen3-4B with DeepSeek-V4-Flash. Our code is available at https://github.com/RuohLiuq/SRO.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Three paradigms for automated post-training.
Figure 2: Overview of SRO. The Recipe-Space Designer constructs a task-adapted recipe space, which the Multi-Domain Recipe Optimizer searches by Domain-Structured Trial Memory and LLM-Augmented Multi-Objective Bayesian Optimization.
Benchmark Scores ( ↑ )
Model
Agent LLM
Harness
GSM8K
GPQA Main
HumanEval
Avg. ( ↑ )
Qwen3-1.7B-Base
–
None
12.7
14.1
7.9
11.6
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
PostTrainBench
49.0
27.5
54.9
43.8
AutoTrainess
79.1
28.1
53.7
53.6
SRO (Ours)
68.2
34.2
64.6
55.6
GPT-5.4
PostTrainBench
48.4
28.6
39.0
38.7
Table 1: Single-domain post-training with two base models and two agent LLMs. Each run targets one benchmark; Avg. denotes the mean score across the three separate runs.
Benchmark Scores ( ↑ )
Mathematical Reasoning
Coding & Tool Use
Science & Health
Model
Agent LLM
Harness
AIME 2025
GSM8K
BFCL
HumanEval
GPQA Main
HealthBench
Avg. ( ↑ )
Qwen3-1.7B-Base
–
None
0.0
12.7
0.0
7.9
14.1
7.5
7.0
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
PostTrainBench
0.0
58.8
92.0
35.4
27.9
8.6
37.1
AutoTrainess
0.0
73.8
92.0
58.5
30.8
15.6
45.1
SRO (Ours)
6.7
76.7
91.0
58.5
16.1
22.7
45.3
Table 2: Multi-domain post-training across six benchmarks in three domains. Each run jointly targets all six benchmarks. Avg. is the mean across domains.
Benchmark Scores ( ↑ )
Mathematical Reasoning
Coding & Tool Use
Science & Health
Model
Variant
AIME 2025
GSM8K
BFCL
HumanEval
GPQA Main
HealthBench
Avg. ( ↑ )
Qwen3-1.7B
Full SRO
6.7
76.7
91.0
58.5
16.1
22.7
45.3
w/o structured recipe search
0.0
57.3
85.0
34.1
23.2
7.6
34.5
w/o LLM proposer
6.7
74.3
94.0
55.5
20.3
13.4
44.0
w/o EHVI selection
0.0
56.0
94.0
51.2
29.7
15.4
41.1
Table 3: Comparison with ablations of the recipe space design and search mechanisms. All runs use DeepSeek-V4-Flash and the same compute budget on each base model.
Figure 3: Search trajectory on HumanEval for Qwen3-1.7B-Base with DeepSeek-V4-Flash. Each point denotes an evaluated recipe, and the solid step curve tracks the best HumanEval pass@1 observed so far. The vertical dashed line separates the SFT and GRPO phases. Numbered annotations mark the seed SFT recipe, the introduction of Rewrite-generated data, the addition of Correction data, the first GRPO improvement, and the final selected checkpoint.
Figure 4: Optimization trajectories of SRO and its variants under the same compute budget. Each curve tracks the best multi-domain average obtained over completed trials.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Benchmark
Domain
Test size
Output contract
Scoring
AIME 2025
math
30
ANSWER: <integer>
exact match
GSM8K
math
1,319
ANSWER: <number>
exact match
BFCL v3
coding & tool use
500
structured tool_calls
schema execution
HumanEval
coding & tool use
164
complete Python function
unit tests
GPQA Main
science & health
448
ANSWER: <A--D>
exact match
HealthBench-Easy
science & health
245
free-form responses
LLM-judge rubrics
Appendix
Table 4: Evaluation benchmarks, output formats, and scoring rules for the single-domain and multi-domain experiments.
Model
AIME
GSM8K
BFCL
HumanEval
GPQA
HealthBench
Mean
Qwen3-1.7B-Base
0.0
12.7
0.0
7.9
14.1
7.5
7.0
Qwen3-1.7B-Instruct
26.7
88.5
94.0
68.9
35.5
44.9
59.7
Qwen3-4B-Base
3.3
41.8
0.0
36.6
13.4
13.4
18.1
Qwen3-4B-Instruct
53.3
93.8
95.0
77.4
44.6
52.7
69.5
Appendix
Table 5: Base and instruction-tuned reference scores used to normalize the BO objectives. Scores are reported on a percentage scale.
Hyperparameter
Value
Trees per domain
24
Maximum tree depth
4
Feature subsampling fraction
0.7
Monte-Carlo draws S
64
Warm-start threshold (feasible trials)
5
Warm-start weights (conf / novelty / risk)
0.4 / 0.2 / 0.3
Appendix
Table 6: Bayesian optimizer hyperparameters, held fixed wherever the corresponding components are retained.
Base model
Before training
Best SFT
GRPO
Final
SRO (Ours)
Qwen3-1.7B-Base
10.3
55.0
55.7
55.7
68.2
Qwen3-4B-Base
43.0
74.8
74.5
74.8
87.6
Appendix
Table 7: GSM8K accuracy (%) under optimization over a predefined recipe space with a fixed training dataset. Single-domain SRO results with DeepSeek-V4-Flash from Table 1 are reproduced for reference.
Benchmark
Base training sources
Rewrite source
Correction source
AIME 2025
AIME 1983–2024; Hendrycks MATH
AIME 1983–2024
aime_diag
GSM8K
GSM8K train; MetaMathQA (GSM subset)
GSM8K train
gsm8k_diag
HumanEval
MBPP; MBPP+ (EvalPlus)
MBPP
mbpp_diag
BFCL
Hermes function-calling; Glaive v2
Hermes
bfcl_hermes_diag
GPQA Main
MMLU (science subset); ARC
MMLU (science subset)
arc_diag
HealthBench
MedAlpaca flashcards; MedAlpaca WikiDoc
MedAlpaca flashcards
medical-o1-reasoning
Appendix
Table 8: Discovery-selected sources for DeepSeek-V4-Flash with Qwen3-1.7B. Correction uses separate source data that exclude evaluation examples.
Benchmark
Method
Description
AIME
Rewrite
Evolve AIME-adjacent competition problems into new integer-answer (0–999) problems with independent full reasoning.
Correction
Turn wrong AIME-style answers on independent source data into corrected full-reasoning integer-answer solutions.
GSM8K
Rewrite
Evolve GSM8K-style word problems into new multi-step arithmetic problems with independent solutions.
Correction
Turn wrong GSM8K-style answers on independent source data into corrected full-reasoning numeric solutions.
HumanEval
Rewrite
Evolve MBPP-style tasks into new function-writing specs with independent solutions and executable tests.
Correction
Repair failing MBPP-style solutions on independent source data into correct, test-passing implementations.
Appendix
Table 9: Agent-designed data-processing methods in the DeepSeek-V4-Flash run for Qwen3-1.7B. Rewrite uses separate task-generation and answer-generation prompts; Correction generates supervision from model errors on independent source data.
Figure 5: Best-so-far search-time six-benchmark mean versus completed trial index for SRO and three optimizer ablations. Left: Qwen3-1.7B-Base. Right: Qwen3-4B-Base. All runs use DeepSeek-V4-Flash and the same compute budget. Trial counts differ because recipe execution costs vary.
Agent LLM
Base model
Trials
Selected trial
Search-time
Final
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
Qwen3-1.7B
16
11
45.3
45.3
DeepSeek-V4-Flash
Qwen3-4B
9
8
54.0
53.8
GPT-5.4
Qwen3-1.7B
17
7
40.9
41.1
GPT-5.4
Qwen3-4B
8
8
48.3
47.5
Appendix
Table 10: Search summary of the four SRO multi-domain runs. The selected trial maximizes the search-time six-benchmark mean. Final scores are obtained by evaluating the selected checkpoint on the complete benchmark sets after the time budget. Evaluation settings are detailed in Appendix B.1 . All scores are reported on a 0–100 scale.
Large language model post-training adapts pretrained models into more useful, reliable, and specialized assistants through supervised and preference-based learning.
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.
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
Large language models (LLMs) excel in open domains but struggle in specialized settings with limited data and evolving knowledge. Existing domain adaptation practices rely heavily on manual trial-and-error processes, incur significant hyperparameter complexity, and are highly sensitive to data and user preferences, all under the high cost of LLM training. Moreover, the interactions and transferability of hyperparameter choices across models/domains remain poorly understood, making adaptation gains uncertain even with substantial effort. To solve these challenges, we present AutoAdapt, a novel end-to-end automated framework for efficient and reliable LLM domain adaptation. AutoAdapt leverages curated knowledge bases from literature and open-source resources to reduce expert intervention. To narrow the search space, we design a novel multi-agent debating system in which proposal and critic agents iteratively interact to align user intent and incorporate data signals and best practices into the planning process. To optimize hyperparameters under tight budgets, we propose AutoRefine, a novel LLM-based surrogate that replaces costly black-box search. Across 10 tasks, AutoAdapt achieves a 25% average relative accuracy improvement over state-of-the-art Automated Machine Learning baselines with minimal overhead.
Sidharth Sinha, Anson Bastos, Xuchao Zhang +3
Microsoft, M365 Research, India · Microsoft, M365 Research, Redmond · Microsoft Research, India