PostTrainBench: Can LLM Agents Automate LLM Post-Training?

Abstract

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? 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 official instruction-tuned LLMs: 27.9% 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 failure modes: agents engage in reward hacking by training on the test set, downloading existing instruction-tuned checkpoints, or using found API keys to generate synthetic data without authorization. Overall, we hope PostTrainBench will be useful for tracking progress in AI R&D automation and for studying the risks that come with it.