A $500 RL fine-tune of a 9B open model beat frontier models on catalog review

As open weight models and cheap fine tuning services become the norm the whole economic framework of these mega models the labs are in an arms race building just completely crumbles. As does the economic picture that justified the massive infrastructure building that’s now broadly funded by a complex network of debt.

This is what makes open weight models so threatening to them. The political and “it’s China” angle is mostly just a cover for the real reasons why they’re freaked out.

The fact that models are now a pure commodity is bad enough for the big labs. If small open weight models become the norm the big labs are toast.

First, I have watched the free improvement of frontier models surpass the gains from retraining, many times now. Squeezing more out of the models that already exist, or simply doing nothing and waiting, is a real strategy and it often pays better. The fair comparison is not against today's frontier but against whatever ships while you are still maintaining your fine-tune.

Second, the $500 training bill is the cheapest line item in this story. The expensive parts are creating the data and maintaining the model afterwards. How many use cases can actually produce 177k scored episodes? Here they had to generate them synthetically from Amazon Berkeley Objects. To me, that dataset is the strongest evidence in the article of how hard fine-tuning is to apply: if the data existed naturally, nobody would need to manufacture it.

We can see this already with GPT how luna can do 90% of what sol is used for. The only reason why china still bothers 'distilling' models is accurate training data generation, something that oai and anthropic had to spend years collecting while trying to dodge legal challenges.

The more intelligent models get, the more people will offramp to cheaper solutions that get the job done. There's no real benefit to using a sota model when the accuracy is already 99% and I think that is the biggest danger to US labs.

From the article it’s not clear how the scorer grades every episode - was it a frontier model that assigned the grade? How does that continue to work as the model that is being fine-tuned becomes better at the task than the frontier model?

Tool calling is an example - in some tasks RAG works really well, including coding agents where code, git log, Epics/Tasks, dependencies sources, etc. are all available in very structured manner. You can save many extra tool calls if you can run separate prompts and retrieve the source data needed for the actual work - rather its prompt.

And I really want to focus on search - this is the key technology if we want to use RAG instead of fine-tuning. If we can present really contextual sources in the prompts using a hybrid search approach - you can see how easily we get better results - either decisions or summaries from even small models.

If we were to take these at face value, why is it that the frontier labs' models are making legitimate new discoveries (e.g. Erdős and Jacobian conjectures) and these models are not?

To me, a better signal of capability would be similarly performing novel work at the same or better level, which they presently are not. I say this as someone who very much looks forward to open models being more capable, but to deny the gap is misguided hopeful hype.

Share of the maximum achievable score our GRPO-trained 9B open-source model reached on catalog review, vs 76.9% for the best frontier configuration: a 13.5% relative improvement over the frontier, and 36% over its own untrained base (64.2%). The five frontier models, even with optimized prompts, plateaued within a tenth of a point of each other; the trained specialist cleared that ceiling."

_______

This is hard for me to believe. I have a lot of skepticism that frontier models like GPT 5.5 that are likely 2T+ parameters in size only got about 12% more accurate than an untrained 9b parameter LLM.