arXiv preprint ·
Do Frontier Models Seek Safety Evidence Before Acting?
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Frontier models are often evaluated on how they respond to safety information once it is already in context. We study an earlier decision point: whether models choose to acquire safety-relevant evidence before acting. We introduce SAFE, a controlled benchmark in which models make deployment decisions with optional evidence that varies in retrieval cost, probability, severity, and presentation. Across GPT-5.5, o3, Claude Opus 4.8, and Claude Sonnet 4.6, we find distinct evidence-acquisition policies: Opus inspects nearly by default, o3 is the most skip-heavy and threshold-sensitive, and GPT-5.5 and Sonnet occupy intermediate regimes. Inspection increases strongly with severity and decreases with retrieval cost, whereas probability has much weaker behavioral influence: increasing the stated likelihood of a problem from 10% to 70% changes inspection by at most 21 percentage points. Despite these differences, Stage 1 rationales are dominated by expected-value reasoning across models. A cost-obligation decomposition further shows that avoidance is driven primarily by retrieval friction and explicit threats to the deployment payoff rather than by the remediation duties created by knowing. Counterfactual interventions reveal a further mismatch between behavior and explanation: evidence framing can strongly change decisions near the inspection boundary while going largely unmentioned, whereas probability is frequently cited despite having little causal influence. These results suggest that deployment-time safety depends not only on how models respond to known risks, but also on whether they acquire the evidence needed to know that acting is safe.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Early-Bird Decoding: Accelerating Diffusion LLMs with Learnable Block Sizes and Parallel Sampling
EDCT-Bench: Uncovering Faithfulness Gaps in VLMs via Explanation-Driven Counterfactual Testing
Fine-Tuning Fixes Mode Collapse and Over-Dispersion in LLMs
Measuring AI Leadership: Development and Validation of a Multidimensional Measure for AI-Native Organizations
OPD-Aha: From Linguistic Momentum to Visual Reflection in Multimodal On-Policy Distillation
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.