Can the Parts Fool the Test? Counterfactual Pairing Cycles for Relational OOD

Robustness evaluation must examine diverse visual perturbations, while benchmarks cover only some real-world conditions and physical testing is costly. Paired evaluations link clean and perturbed predictions for the same image, capturing changes in correctness, confidence, and acceptance beyond aggregate accuracy. We investigate how this image correspondence supports two needs in robustness evaluation: interpreting paired evaluation results and prioritizing samples for physical testing. To interpret paired evaluation results, we fix both sets of prediction records and vary their correspondence within each class. We prove that classwise correct-correct counts give the same sharp bounds on lost acceptance and mean true-class probability decrease among retained-correct inputs as any feasible five-state refinement. Distinguishing persistent from changed wrong answers can further constrain accepted-error transitions, while shared correspondence can establish policy orderings left unresolved by separate cost intervals. To prioritize samples for physical testing, we retain each image's synthetic responses and rank clean-correct images by their mean true-class probability under corruption. Across 44 classifiers, testing the highest-risk 20% finds 67% and 45% of failures under mild screen and print recaptures, versus 58% and 36% for clean confidence and 60% and 37% for an equal-size natural-transformation average. With both probability averaging and an A3Rank scoring adaptation, the tested corruption set yields higher mean failure recall than the natural-transform set; differences between scores depend on the source and budget. Together, these findings show that the value of correspondence depends on the evaluation objective: classwise counts suffice for specified reliability bounds, while image-specific synthetic responses improve the allocation of physical tests within the evaluated pool.

Vision-language retrieval with CLIP-style dual encoders achieves strong cross-modal performance, yet practical accuracy often hinges on localized semantic distinctions where top-ranked near misses differ from the true match by a single critical detail. Hard-sample mining can select confusable candidates but cannot construct corrected counterparts; synthetic augmentation can generate novel samples but, without conditioning on actual model failures, targets irrelevant dimensions of hardness. We observe that a top-ranked false positive is a counterfactual scaffold---sharing most of the query's semantics while differing in a localized failure-causing residual. Minimally correcting this residual yields a hard positive of the ground truth in the same modality; the corrected and unedited versions form a hard negative pair that straddles the decision boundary, producing complementary pull--push supervision. We introduce RePair, guided by three principles---Validity, Minimality, and Locality---which mines false positives bidirectionally, applies LLM-guided counterfactual editing, and trains with a local hard-pair contrastive objective. On Flickr30K and COCO30K, RePair outperforms controlled augmentation baselines with only 107K synthetic samples---26%--75% fewer than comparable methods---confirming failure-conditioned repair is more data-efficient than error-agnostic augmentation.

Chain-of-thought (CoT) may often look plausible, yet it may not faithfully reflect the model's decision-making process. While methods for measuring the faithfulness of CoTs for textual inputs have been increasingly introduced, using these methods for visual inputs is not straightforward. In this work, we adapt the family of counterfactual methods for measuring CoT faithfulness, namely the Counterfactual Test (CT) and Correlational Counterfactual Test (CCT), to visual inputs, and call them vCT and vCCT, respectively. Using vCT and vCCT, we benchmark eight recent open-source Vision Language Models (VLMs) on two datasets. Our analysis shows that CoTs do not reliably track visual evidence that influences model predictions: they may omit the removed object even when its removal causes a large prediction shift, yet mention it when the shift is small. We further find that Predict-then-Explain explanations align more strongly with perturbation-induced probability shifts than pre-answer CoTs, while binary vCT scores are often nearly saturated. We also include a reconstruction control, in which images pass through the same editing pipeline without object removal, and find that the main object-removal intervention induces larger shifts than reconstruction alone. We construct and release Counter-SNLI-VE and Counter-A-OKVQA, two datasets of image pairs that differ by a single object.