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
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.15415
