Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces an action-class diagnostic framework that dissects multi-turn tool-calling failures in large language models (LLMs) into two distinct modes: action-class miscalibration and action-execution failure. By applying this framework to various tool-calling models, the authors reveal that action-class miscalibration is a significant failure mode often overlooked by traditional evaluation metrics, leading to inflated performance standings for certain model families. The findings indicate that calibration can be improved through context-only perturbations, but the effects are heterogeneous, highlighting the need for more nuanced evaluation methods in multi-turn scenarios.
Action-class miscalibration is a hidden failure mode that can significantly skew performance evaluations of LLMs in multi-turn tool-calling tasks.
Multi-turn tool calling is a core evaluation scenario for large language model (LLM) agents. On public tool-calling benchmarks, open-weight models now approach or even surpass closed-source frontier models in aggregate accuracy. However, this metric averages over many different multi-turn situations and obscures whether progress is balanced across them. We propose an action-class-oriented diagnostic framework that decomposes multi-turn failures into two orthogonal modes: action-class miscalibration and action-execution failure. The framework operates over a four-class action space (TOOL_CALL/ASK/REFUSE/CONFIRM) and introduces a self-revealing upper bound Acc <= GAR (Gold Action Recall); the two modes show up as bound violation (Acc > GAR, exposing state-grader masking of miscalibration) and large bound slack (GAR >> Acc, localizing execution failure within TOOL_CALL). We validate it on a panel of tool-calling models across multiple multi-turn benchmarks. Across our panel, the diagnostic reveals action-class miscalibration as a substantial failure mode the state grader cannot see. This gap inflates standing for heavily tool-trained families, which our diagnostic separates from families with context-appropriate action choice. Calibration is reshapable through context-only perturbations, but the reshape is heterogeneous: a single perturbation moves accuracy in opposite directions across families (up to +11.5 vs -21.0 pp on the same scenario), and its effect further depends on the perturbation mechanism. We argue that multi-turn tool-calling evaluations should supplement aggregate accuracy with action-class diagnostics that expose what the model actually does in each scenario.
