arXiv preprint ·
Sensitivity or Criterion? Measuring and Moving When Language Models Act
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Before an agent acts, it must decide whether action is warranted. A single accuracy cannot distinguish failure to recognize a warranted action from reluctance to act. Signal-detection theory separates sensitivity from criterion, but criteria estimated from authored binary labels depend on each benchmark's example mix. We introduce FlipAct, a diagnostic of tool use in physical states. A rule over annotated tool properties computes each answer and a graded evidence score, fixing the Yes/No boundary at zero across models. Questions form 2-by-2 quads that hold required knowledge fixed while the state flips. The slope of the fitted Yes-rate curve measures sensitivity; its crossing at one half measures criterion. Across 44 open models, sensitivity rises with size within a family, and its ranking agrees with three of four external when-to-act benchmarks. Models respond to evidence sign rather than magnitude, accepting actions that leave the state no better about as often as helpful ones. When Yes means act, most models are conservative across rephrasings; in some, this partly reflects a preference for No. Criterion is not determined by size. Activation steering shifts criterion with weights fixed; distillation from a model's own steered copy puts the shift into its weights without a significant sensitivity change. The distilled shift transfers to six external benchmarks, including two without Yes/No answers, while criterion-free AUC is preserved on the five benchmarks where it is available. Accuracy improves where models start conservative and declines or remains within error where they start permissive. Project page: https://sixundong.com/projects/flipact
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 Computation & Language / NLP
Sequent-Prover: Training Agents for Formal, Checkable SMT-based Reasoning
PAIR: Memory-Efficient and Fast Inference with Reading--Reasoning Fusion
Do correct answers have stable latent knowledge support?
Improving the Evaluation of Biomedical Question Answering with Few Human Preference Signals
North or South? Diagnosing LLMs' Understanding of North Korean Language, Society, and Knowledge
Get the few papers worth your time in Computation & Language / NLP 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.