Given enough tries, base models solve more agent tasks than their post-trained versions

Post-training makes a model a better agent on its first try. A team from Meta and the University of Wisconsin found it also shrinks the set of agent tasks the model can solve at all. The paper calls this the Sharpening Tax.

Slide text

Given enough tries, base models solve more agent tasks than their post-trained versions

Changdae Oh, Sharon Li and colleagues · Meta Superintelligence Labs, University of Wisconsin–Madison, NYU, Stanford

Oh et al. · Sharpening Tax in Post-Training · arXiv 2610.01509v1 · submitted 1 Oct 2026

The study pairs each pre-trained base model with its released post-trained version. There are fourteen pairs from four open families. Each model ran up to 128 times per task on three tool-calling benchmarks.

Base models have no chat or tool-call format, so the authors gave them a light harness. It lists tools as Python functions and takes calls back as JSON, with no worked examples. Post-trained models kept each benchmark's default setup.

Post-trained models win when they get one try. With more tries, the curves cross. On the WebShop shopping benchmark, the 31B Gemma 4 base model solved over 85 percent of tasks at least once in 128 tries, against 56 percent for its post-trained version.

Model size moves the crossover. On WebShop, the smallest Gemma 4 base model still hadn't caught up after 128 tries. The 31 billion parameter base model overtook its post-trained version after about three.

The reason shows up task by task. The base model solves most WebShop tasks on some tries, so retrying keeps paying off. After post-training, about a quarter are always solved and 44 percent are never solved, so retrying stops helping.

The authors turn this into one number, the Sharpening Tax. It is how much less a post-trained model gains from extra tries than its base model does. At 128 tries, the tax was positive in 36 of the 42 cases.

The tax is cheap to estimate. Measured from eight tries on half the tasks, it ranked the 42 cases almost the same way as the tax from 32 tries on the other half.

Their fix is a sampler for reinforcement learning called PTGS. It keeps a running estimate of how often the model solves each prompt. Hard prompts get sampled at a higher temperature and easy ones lower. The training algorithm stays the same.

They tested it by training Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct on two grid puzzles, Sokoban and FrozenLake. With PTGS, both PPO and GRPO solved more tasks within 128 tries, and more on the first try as well.

The paper calls its study observational. The labs haven't disclosed the exact training data behind these checkpoints. The two sides also ran in different setups, and thinking mode was off. Turning it on kept the same trend in the two models tested.

The base model's lead has conditions. Its first-try accuracy is far lower, so you need many tries and a way to check which one worked. The smallest models often did better post-trained at eight tries or fewer. PTGS was tested on two puzzles with one model.

The authors want post-training judged by how much of the base model's reach it keeps, with the Sharpening Tax reported alongside accuracy. The paper is on arXiv, and the code and per-task results are on GitHub.