aiqbench analysis
This paper introduces FlipAct, a diagnostic framework that disentangles model sensitivity from decision criteria when agents determine whether to execute tool-use actions. By isolating these factors across 44 open models, the study reveals that larger models generally exhibit higher sensitivity but not necessarily different criteria, and demonstrates how activation steering can shift decision thresholds without altering core capability. This work advances the evaluation of autonomous agents by providing a more granular understanding of their willingness to act under uncertainty.
Sensitivity or Criterion? Measuring and Moving When Language Models Act
arXiv:2610.15415v1 Announce Type: cross 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
Title:Sensitivity or Criterion? Measuring and Moving When Language Models Act
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: this https URL
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.15415 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2610.15415v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.15415 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 359 words
Related coverage

MedPAIR: Measuring Whether Physicians and AI Agree on What Matters in Medical QA
Snorkel AI Blog · Oct 2, 2026

PIRAMID: Progress and Plans
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026
Does ChatGPT really have a strong left-wing bias?
LessWrong · Jul 27, 2026
LLM Judges Have Dark Current: A Psychometric Datasheet for LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation
arXiv · Jun 17, 2026