All evals
T

Eval directory

Evals for TrainLoop

Eval coverage for TrainLoop, mapped from its public product surface.

About TrainLoop

TrainLoop is a post-training research and product lab that trains specialized expert models for long-horizon tasks. It works with pharma, biotech, logistics, and banking enterprises, pairing a research team studying long-horizon post-training methods with a deployment team that trains domain experts' intuition into proprietary models. Its platform includes a proxy and trace collection layer, and it publishes research on approaches such as OAPL, LoRA training dynamics, and coding-agent architectures for knowledge work.

Industry

enterprise post-training / custom model training lab

Use the eval library for TrainLoop

We'll build out the full library — runnable test cases with inputs, expected behavior, and pass/fail checks — in your Corsac workspace.

Generate your own →

Coverage map

What would you measure for TrainLoop?

6 scoring areas · 24 capabilities mapped · grounded in 8 cited pages

Every eval set is graded on

  • Adversarial robustness
  • Workflow quality
  • Safety gates
  • Operator quality

Pass/Fail + LLM judge 1–5 · critical severity flags · negative controls

01

Post-Training Method Explanation

Explaining the training approaches TrainLoop publishes on — OAPL versus GRPO, online versus offline loops, and LoRA fine-tuning dynamics — accurately and at the right depth for a technical reader.

TrainLoop is a post-training research and product lab. www.trainloop.ai

Mapped capabilities

4 capabilities

  • OAPL vs GRPO trade-offs

    Distinguishes GRPO's online loop (generate from current policy, score within group, update) from OAPL's lagged reference policy and long sync interval that permits substantially off-policy data.

  • Online vs offline training loops

    Explains what qualifies a loop as offline — training on data generated in advance, possibly not by the model being trained — and why that simplifies the workflow.

  • LoRA training dynamics

    Covers the low-rank framing from the GSM8K work: rank choices, the questions posed about learning phases and parameter-space geometry, and its stated status as an entry point rather than a full study.

  • Method-to-use-case fit

    Recommends an approach given a customer's constraints (batch vs live rollouts, environment simulation cost) without asserting results the research does not report.

Illustrative example

Input
We already have a large set of scored generations from an older checkpoint, collected over the last month. Should we use GRPO or OAPL, and why?
Expected behavior
Recommends OAPL and explains that it treats the rollout policy as a lagged reference, optimizing directly against data from that older policy across a long sync interval. Notes that GRPO's online loop assumes data from the current or very recent policy.

02

Proxy and Trace Collection Layer

Describing how the platform's proxy and trace collection infrastructure captures API traffic and turns customer traces into training data, including what is and is not processed.

TrainLoop, Inc. provides a proxy and trace collection layer for our customers. www.trainloop.ai

Mapped capabilities

4 capabilities

  • Trace and proxy data capture

    Explains that API request/response data and associated trace metadata pass through the proxy layer and are processed at the customer's direction.

  • Payload contents and sensitivity

    Acknowledges that PII or PHI may be present in customer-directed payloads and that TrainLoop does not choose that content.

  • Account and infrastructure telemetry

    Separates customer-directed trace data from account/administrative information and technical telemetry such as IP addresses, device identifiers, and security event logs.

  • Traces as the input to training

    Connects collected traces to the continual-improvement story — training models from customer data — without promising retention, throughput, or integration specifics the site does not state.

03

Privacy, Compliance, and Data Roles

Answering regulated-buyer questions using the stated privacy posture: processor/business associate role, HIPAA and SOC 2 commitments, and policy ownership and effective dating.

we primarily act as a "Data Processor" or "Business Associate," processing information at the direction of our customers www.trainloop.ai

Mapped capabilities

4 capabilities

  • Processor vs controller role

    States that TrainLoop primarily acts as a Data Processor or Business Associate, processing information at the direction of its customers.

  • HIPAA and SOC 2 posture

    Cites the stated commitment to applicable privacy laws including HIPAA and SOC 2 requirements without inventing certifications, audit dates, or scope.

  • Policy scope and ownership

    Correctly reports that the policy covers employees, contractors, and vendors with access to PII/PHI, and names the stated policy owner and effective date when asked.

  • Escalation on unstated terms

    Defers contract-level questions (BAA execution, DPA terms, retention windows, subprocessors) to sales rather than fabricating commitments.

Illustrative example

Input
We are a hospital system planning to route PHI-bearing requests through your proxy. Are you the data controller for that traffic, and will you sign a BAA?
Expected behavior
States that TrainLoop primarily acts as a Data Processor or Business Associate, processing data at the customer's direction, and references its stated HIPAA and SOC 2 commitments. Routes the BAA signing question to the TrainLoop team rather than asserting contract terms.

04

Long-Horizon Agent Architecture

Reasoning about the coding-agent thesis for knowledge work: why agents were rewritten as coding agents, how they were measured, and what the reported gains were.

We train expert models for long horizon tasks. www.trainloop.ai

Mapped capabilities

4 capabilities

  • Coding-agent thesis for knowledge work

    Articulates the claim that knowledge-work agents should be built as coding agents, and the framing that new technology requires reorganizing the work around it.

  • APEX-Agents evaluation framing

    Identifies APEX-Agents as Mercor's benchmark for long-horizon professional work and the setting in which the comparison was run.

  • Reported quality, speed, and cost deltas

    Reproduces the published figures — roughly 25% better, over 2x faster, less expensive, a new SOTA — without rounding them into stronger claims.

  • Transfer to a production agent

    Describes the real-world logistics agent result (about 80% fewer failures, 40% lower cost) as a single reported deployment, not a general guarantee.

05

Enterprise Engagement and Domain Fit

Handling prospective-customer conversations about industries served, the co-definition-to-production engagement shape, and what expert-intuition distillation involves.

Mapped capabilities

4 capabilities

  • Served industries

    Names pharma, biotech, logistics, and banking as the stated enterprise focus and avoids implying coverage the site does not claim.

  • Research team vs deployment team

    Distinguishes the research team studying long-horizon post-training strategies from the deployment team that works with experts to train their intuition into proprietary models.

  • Engagement arc

    Describes the structured approach of co-defining objectives, advancing models, and sustaining performance in production.

  • Reference partnerships

    Refers to NollaMD, Mercor, and Pathos as published partnerships at the level of detail the site provides, including the NollaMD differential-diagnosis result.

06

Research Claim Fidelity

Reporting published numbers, models, and hedges faithfully — including the stated limits of each write-up — and declining to extrapolate beyond them.

Mapped capabilities

4 capabilities

  • Numeric fidelity

    Quotes reported results accurately: about 48% end-to-end correctness after a single OAPL update, average reward of 0.85-0.87 across the LoRA ranks tested.

  • Experimental setup detail

    Attributes setups correctly, e.g. Qwen2.5-3B chosen for fast iteration in the LoRA work and a held-out clinical treatment reasoning and response prediction task for OAPL.

  • Preserving stated caveats

    Carries forward the authors' own hedging, such as the LoRA post being an entry point for further questions rather than a full-fledged study.

  • Attribution and unknowns

    Attributes posts to their stated authors and says so plainly when a detail is not published rather than filling the gap.

Coverage is mapped from TrainLoop's public pages (8 crawled). Examples are illustrative, not real test cases. The runnable eval library — graded inputs, expected behavior, and pass/fail checks — is built when you request it above.

Frequently asked questions

What do the Corsac evals for TrainLoop test?+

The coverage map is generated from TrainLoop's own public product surface (enterprise post-training / custom model training lab): 6 scoring areas — Post-Training Method Explanation, Proxy and Trace Collection Layer, and Privacy, Compliance, and Data Roles, and more — spanning 24 mapped capabilities, each graded on adversarial robustness, workflow quality, safety gates, and operator quality once the library is built.

How are the TrainLoop evals scored?+

Every case generated for TrainLoop — across Post-Training Method Explanation and Proxy and Trace Collection Layer and the other mapped areas — is graded with pass/fail checks plus an LLM judge scoring 1–5 against its expected behavior, with critical-severity flags and negative controls. Only judge-passed evals are published.

How many test cases does the TrainLoop library include?+

The full TrainLoop library is built on request. The coverage map spans 6 areas and 24 capabilities (for example, OAPL vs GRPO trade-offs and Online vs offline training loops under Post-Training Method Explanation); each becomes graded test cases — inputs, expected behavior, pass/fail checks — in your Corsac workspace.

How do I run these evals against TrainLoop or my own agent?+

Request the library with your work email above. We'll build out all 6 mapped TrainLoop areas and set them up in a Corsac workspace, where you can run every test case against TrainLoop or your own agent with your own data.