Counterfactual Reasoning

Hierarchical robotic systems executing long-horizon manipulation tasks must make high-level semantic decisions that orchestrate stochastic low-level skills. In this setting, failed rollouts are ambiguous: a poor downstream state may reflect an invalid high-level decision, partial observation, or a valid decision whose physical execution failed. Traditional supervised learning lacks data for such recovery states, while reinforcement learning struggles with sparse rewards and non-local credit assignment. We propose MAGMA-GEN, an on-policy data-generation pipeline that converts ambiguous failed rollouts into validated recovery supervision. MAGMA-GEN first uses a privileged coach to hypothesize an early decision-level error and propose localized correction or recovery actions. Because this diagnosis is fallible, candidates are retained only if re-execution from the same state under matched conditions improves downstream progress. This produces supervised examples from the agent's own failure distribution without per-step human demonstrations. Evaluated on interactive long-horizon manipulation tasks, MAGMA-GEN improves task success and recovery capabilities, against distillation and trajectory-repair baselines under evolving task constraints in both simulation and real-robot execution.

In this reproducibility study, we investigate the transparency and scrutability of recommender systems enhanced by incorporating generated natural-language user profiles that represent user preferences. The original paper explores the synthesis of user profiles from raw user-generated review text across domains such as movies and accommodations (Amazon Movies & TV, TripAdvisor). Crucially, these natural-language user profiles enable direct user interaction and intervention, allowing users to customize recommendations by correcting misattributed preferences or addressing cold-start settings. We successfully reproduce the core findings of the original study. Additionally, we extend the evaluation by conducting systematic context ablation experiments, multi-seed stability across five distinct random seeds to establish statistical reliability, and a mechanistic interpretability analysis using the nnsight framework to probe internal model representations under counterfactual profile perturbations. Our findings verify the original paper's claim that User Profile Recommendation (UPR) achieves competitive performance under its test-set reranking protocol and makes recommendations more transparent. Perturbing the natural-language profiles does change predictions, but it shifts predicted ratings uniformly across genres with no detectable genre-selective effect, leaving rankings unchanged even under direct activation steering. We trace this back to the rating-regression objective rather than the profile interface, with ranking-objective models clearly exceeding in this task.

A learned simulator can reproduce its training conditions accurately yet fail in two distinct ways once those conditions change. Over long rollouts, small errors accumulate until the trajectory drifts away from physically plausible behavior; under an intervention on a physical parameter, the model may continue to follow the law seen during training rather than the intervened one. We show that these two failures require different structural remedies. Evolving a learned energy with a symplectic integrator preserves the geometry of the conservative dynamics and keeps rollouts bounded and physically meaningful for up to $100\times$ the training horizon, while equal-capacity predictors, an energy-regularized predictor, and a tuned neural ODE diverge. By contrast, encoding the physical coupling through an explicit linear factorization enables the model to follow a never-seen sign of that coupling, whereas an unrestricted parameterization remains locked to the training law. Crucially, the two mechanisms are separable: removing the structure responsible for long-horizon stability leaves counterfactual transfer intact, while removing the factorized coupling destroys counterfactual transfer without eliminating stability. This double dissociation, established with matched controls that remove or replace one structural component at a time, persists beyond the headline three-body system and remains visible when the physical state must be inferred from pixels rather than provided directly. The result is a concrete design principle for physical world models: long-horizon stability and changed-law generalization arise from distinct structural commitments, and each can be imposed deliberately without requiring the other.

Counterfactual (CF) explanations identify changes that alter an input's classification. While existing methods produce realistic and low-cost CFs, they often fail to ensure feasibility, by suggesting non-constructive modifications or incompatible with future changes (e.g., changing an individual's race to secure a job offer). We introduce a refinement of CF explanations that explicitly enforces feasibility. Our approach is the first to efficiently generate CFs that are realistic, low-cost and feasible. We accommodate both hard feasible constraints, specified by domain knowledge users, and soft feasible constraints, inferred automatically via causal inference from the dataset. Our method, Feasible Counterfactual Explanations (FCx), is based on a modified Variational Autoencoder (VAE) optimized with a multi-factor loss function. We measure the cost of a change based on the absolute change in values (proximity) as well as the number of features changed (sparsity) while realism is measured based on the LOF for density estimation, guaranteeing that CFs reside in densely populated regions. Extensive experiments on four public datasets show that our approach matches state-of-the-art performance across multiple metrics while guaranteeing feasibility.

Reliable agent evaluation is complicated by automatic harness optimization, which repeatedly uses a released benchmark $B_{\mathrm{rel}}$ to guide a Proposer that edits prompts, memory, retrieval, tools, and control code around a fixed target agent. Task holdout varies semantic tasks but leaves the benchmark protocol fixed, so a "bad genius" Proposer can produce a cheating harness whose released-benchmark gain depends on a benchmark-wide shortcut. We introduce Counterfactual Harness Search and Evolution (CHASE), which casts harness evolution as constraint generation over validity-preserving benchmark counterfactuals. After each Proposer update, a Challenger searches for an executable protocol transformation with large gain destruction. A validity firewall checks that task semantics are preserved, while a confirmation set determines whether the counterfactual enters a finite archive. We formalize an exact shortcut-neutralized benchmark $B_0$ and establish statistical guarantees linking finite counterfactual archives to $B_0$ and characterizing sequential Challenger search. We evaluate CHASE on a synthetic benchmark and on OfficeQA, where CHASE retains strong released-benchmark gains while substantially reducing gain destruction under valid protocol changes.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) can produce Natural Language Explanations (NLEs) that sound plausible yet remain inconsistent with the visual evidence they cite. We present Explanation-Driven Counterfactual Testing (EDCT), an intervention-based protocol that extracts visual concepts cited in a model's explanation, applies verified minimal edits to them, and tests whether the resulting answer and explanation remain consistent with the edited image. Using this protocol, we create EDCT-Bench, a comprehensive benchmark spanning three complementary domains: knowledge-intensive visual question answering (OK-VQA), safety-critical driving (DriveLM), and 3D spatial reasoning (3DSRBench). Across the evaluated VLMs, EDCT reveals substantial faithfulness gaps, with models frequently producing responses inconsistent with verified visual changes. Finally, our fine-tuning study suggests that EDCT-generated counterfactuals provide high-impact training signals.

Policy learning aims to determine who should be treated based on individual characteristics. In high-stakes settings such as medicine and public policy where safety is a central concern, improving the average outcomes alone may not be sufficient: decision makers may also seek to protect individuals from harm, in line with the Hippocratic principle of ``do no harm.'' In this paper, we propose \textit{conformal policy learning} (CPL), a policy learning procedure with a new distribution-free safety guarantee that controls the probability of assigning treatment to an individual who would be harmed relative to control. CPL views each treatment decision as testing a hypothesis of counterfactual harm and assigns treatment by thresholding conformal p-values. These p-values use observable proxies and selective calibration to address the challenge that the potential outcomes under comparison are never simultaneously observed. For randomized experiments, under standard exchangeability conditions, CPL provides finite-sample safety guarantee at a user-specified level, without imposing any outcome modeling assumptions. Moreover, when the outcome model is consistently estimated, CPL achieves asymptotically optimal welfare subject to the safety constraint. In observational studies, CPL with learn-then-balance weights achieves doubly robust safety guarantees. We evaluate CPL through extensive simulations and apply it to an empirical study of AI-powered interventions designed to reduce conspiracy beliefs.

Grounded language-model systems are often evaluated by final answer accuracy, yet a correct answer can be unsupported, drawn from the wrong source, or produced when evidence is insufficient or contradictory. We introduce EviScope, a paired counterfactual benchmark that holds the question fixed while adding, removing, distracting, or contradicting its evidence. EviScope-v1.1 contains 40 four-condition quartets with repaired counterfactual claims and span-level support labels for automatic evaluation. Across 960 gold-blind generations from Qwen2.5-7B, Llama 3.1 8B, and Gemini 3.5 Flash, paired metrics expose model-dependent grounding behavior that answer accuracy hides. On two local open models, an explicit evidence-action gate underperforms vanilla RAG on QCS: 0.15 vs. 0.50 for Qwen and 0.10 vs. 0.375 for Llama. Gemini reaches 0.944 joint success under both prompts, yet still answers 5% of conflict cases after contradiction insertion. EviScope therefore distinguishes unsupported answering, conflict blindness, and wrong non-answer actions rather than scoring answers alone.

Frozen vision-language models (VLMs) remain unreliable on fine-grained left-right claims, and raw claim likelihoods need not reliably rank verification errors. After a horizontal-reflection intervention is fixed, how should its induced likelihood measurements be combined into a selective verification signal? We introduce Relation-Orbit, a closed-form contrast with no learned fusion parameters that assigns eight normalized likelihoods to query-supporting and counterfactual roles determined by reflection, inverse relation, and entity exchange. A claim is asserted only when the signed contrast exceeds a threshold selected on held-out data using pointwise Clopper-Pearson upper confidence bounds. On VSR and GQA across four frozen VLMs, Relation-Orbit yields higher mean test coverage at a 10% selective-risk calibration target than an all-eight Orbit-Max baseline in all eight dataset-backbone settings; gains over a nearly abstain-all one-sided intervention score are reported separately. A separate LLaVA-1.5/COCO evaluation, reduced-orbit controls, and a two-sided partition diagnostic further characterize the structural advantage.

Spoken sarcasm detectors may exploit lexical content, prosody, or their interaction, yet conventional evaluation cannot reveal which cues drive their predictions. We introduce CLASH (Controlled Lexical-Acoustic Separation Harness), a bilingual counterfactual diagnostic framework that evaluates each utterance under original, lexical-preserving, prosody-preserving, and approximately neutralised conditions. We evaluate handcrafted acoustic-feature systems, self-supervised learning (SSL) probes, and large audio language models (LALMs) on CMMA and MUStARD. For target-only Qwen3-Omni, lexical-preserving speech retains a 0.135--0.148 AUROC advantage over prosody-preserving speech after duration balancing, with cluster-bootstrap intervals above zero; alternative lexical resynthesis preserves this advantage. Acoustic interventions shift scores without consistently improving discrimination or changing binary predictions under the evaluated conditions. Context and interaction estimates vary across corpora. These findings distinguish acoustic sensitivity from sarcasm discrimination while exposing duration, identity, and transformation effects.

Modern Visual Question Answering (VQA) models often exploit spurious correlations in training data, leading to poor out-of-distribution (OOD) generalization due to language bias. Although counterfactual learning has shown promise, existing methods can be improved to better guide attention toward causal evidence and strengthen feature discrimination. To address this, we propose a novel training framework that enhances counterfactual contrastive learning for VQA. Our framework introduces three key contributions: (1) a three-stage curriculum for stable multi-objective optimization, (2) an enhanced Batch-Contrastive loss for more discriminative feature learning, and (3) two novel regularizers, Answer-Contrastive (AC) loss to refine the prediction space and Gradient-Discrepancy (GD) loss to enforce causal visual grounding. Our model achieves a competitive accuracy of 61.64% on the bias-sensitive VQA-CP v2 benchmark while maintaining 62.80% on the standard VQA v2 dataset, yielding a small generalization gap of 1.16%. This demonstrates a strong balance between OOD robustness and in-distribution performance.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds a language model's answers on retrieved external knowledge and returns each answer with citations that identify its sources. Those citations are the user's audit trail: they let a reader verify a claim without trusting the model. Prior security work on RAG asks whether an attacker can corrupt the answer, leaving the citation channel unexplored. We show that this channel is a new and practical attack surface. We propose CiteShade, the first citation laundering attack to RAG, in which an attacker controlling a single source induces a model to produce an attacker-chosen wrong answer and to attribute it to a trusted source that does not support it, while the evidence for the correct answer remains in context. We formulate the attack as an optimization problem, derive three necessary conditions (retrieval, generation, and citation) and construct sources satisfying them without any instruction. On multi-source multi-hop question answering the attack raises the wrong-answer rate from 0.01 to 0.68, and source deletion confirms the malicious source is the causal driver in every measured case. Vulnerability tracks a model's propensity to cite rather than its scale, reaching CLR 0.84 under explicit instruction and 0.64 with no instruction at all on the most citation-prone model tested. We then show that perplexity filtering and citation-support checking are each insufficient, and propose a counterfactual defense that verifies which source actually drove the answer.

Medical counterfactual generation modifies images to change model predictions for interpretability. However, existing diffusion-based approaches are often prohibitively slow and memory-intensive, making them difficult to apply in high-resolution settings. Moreover, existing masking strategies are tightly coupled with pixel-space representations, making them incompatible with latent-space diffusion editing. To address these challenges, we propose MedDiME, a latent-space classifier-guided diffusion framework that reduces computational and memory overhead while introducing a latent-compatible, gradient-driven adaptive masking mechanism for spatially precise medical counterfactual generation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MedDiME achieves high-quality counterfactual generation with significant efficiency gains compared to prior classifier-guided diffusion baselines, achieving up to 40 times faster inference and 13 times lower peak GPU memory usage.

CounterFactual Examples (CFEs) are a cornerstone of eXplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI), offering local, post hoc, and model-agnostic explanations by identifying minimal input modifications that alter a model's prediction. Yet, in order to be intelligible, these modifications must also be semantically meaningful to the explainee. This paper proposes to integrate knowledge expressed as a fuzzy linguistic vocabulary to represent the explainee's perception and interpretation of the data. The domain induced by this fuzzy vocabulary imposes structural constraints that make the features dependent, preventing the use of gradient-based optimisation methods for CFE generation, e.g., DiCE. The paper proposes a continuous data embedding in this linguistic domain and exploits it to define a variant of DiCE that allows personalisation for the explainee, named DiCEf. As illustrated by experimental results on a real-world dataset, this extension of the DiCE method enables the generation of CFEs that are linguistically perceptible while preserving cost minimality, sparsity, and diversity.

Conformal counterfactual prediction constructs prediction sets with finite-sample coverage guarantees for counterfactual outcomes and individual treatment effects under the no-interference assumption. In this work, we relax this assumption by allowing each unit's potential outcomes to depend on other units' treatments and covariates. In this setting, propensity-score reweighting does not restore weighted exchangeability, and existing methods may fail to achieve valid coverage. To address this issue, we develop interference-adjusted weighted conformal prediction that accounts for interference by constructing an observable upper bound on the ideal and unobserved conformal $p$-value under the target intervention. The resulting prediction sets provide finite-sample marginal coverage guarantees for counterfactual outcomes and individual treatment effects in both transductive and inductive settings. We also derive a sharper construction when intervention-induced changes in nonconformity scores are bounded. Numerical experiments show that our methods preserve nominal coverage, whereas existing methods may not.

Vision-Language-Action (VLA) policies perform robot manipulation tasks using multimodal inputs such as visual observations, proprioceptive states, and language instructions. However, it remains unclear at which execution stages each modality contributes to final task success and how input interventions propagate through subsequent states, observations, and actions. Existing attribution approaches primarily measure local sensitivity or temporally aggregated importance, limiting their ability to capture phase-dependent contributions and cross-phase dependencies. We propose Interaction-aware Multimodal Propagation Attribution via Counterfactual Trajectories for Vision-Language-Action Policies (IMPACT-VLA). IMPACT-VLA constructs behavioral phases from action transitions in a successful reference rollout, aligns them with policy query boundaries, and defines phase-modality blocks as attribution units. It then performs closed-loop counterfactual re-execution to quantify each block's contribution to final task success. We further analyze cross-phase non-additive interactions and trajectory propagation while distinguishing behavioral from functional recovery. Across 30 LIBERO robot manipulation tasks using OpenVLA-OFT, dominant-modality transitions occurred in 25 tasks (83.3%), and closed-loop attribution identified task-critical information more faithfully than Static Action Perturbation. Later-block marginal gains for negatively interacting pairs increased by approximately 3.3x under early-phase input replacement, while functional recovery could occur without behavioral recovery. These results reveal when multimodal inputs support task success and how their contributions become conditionally coupled during closed-loop execution.

Agentic pipelines for structured-query generation are rapidly expanding, but it is unclear which part of the loop produces the gain. We use LAST-CQ -- a five-agent, training-free, execution-grounded Text-to-Cypher framework -- as an instrumented testbed, running three counterfactuals over 2,471 live-database queries and six backbones spanning three vendor scale tiers. Removing correction is worth between 3.1% aggregate execution-BLEU against the single-pass system and 12.3% against a no-refinement counterfactual (up to 80.7% for the weakest backbone). Replacing schema-grounded, LLM-synthesised feedback with raw database error strings costs almost nothing (20.9% vs. 19.9% naive exact match; <0.2% end-to-end; equivalent within $\pm 0.075$ set-F1 by two one-sided tests). Spending the same call budget on parallel sampling degrades quality by 10-11%. What works is detecting failure and routing it to a retry, not the feedback sophistication or number of samples. LAST-CQ itself recovers 91.7% of queries that fail under single-pass generation, while a query that succeeds first time still costs exactly one LLM call. We also show that n-gram overlap on serialised results is not a bound in either direction: it over-scores against set equivalence on 65.9% of results while under-scoring against judged semantics. Finally, we calibrate our LLM judge against blind human labels and find it optimistic by 9 points.

Machine learning models can achieve strong test performance while relying on demographic or acquisition-related shortcuts. We propose counterfactual (CF) marginalisation as a test-time evaluation procedure for assessing robustness of classification models to such variables. Given a CF image generator, we intervene on nuisance parent variables such as age or sex, generate CF versions of each test image, and average predictions over a target intervention distribution. This produces intervention-aware predictions that marginalise demographic effects while preserving patient-specific latent information. We use these predictions to define metrics for CF risk, calibration, stability and worst-case sensitivity. We demonstrate this framework's utility for quantitative robustness evaluation.

A wrong answer does not show whether the model lacked the needed information or held it and failed to use it. On an entity-obligation binding task, a language model can emit an incorrect prompt-supplied binding while a linear probe can recover the correct one from its frozen hidden state. We measure how often this occurs across 16 public checkpoints, each evaluated with three seeds. We fit a probe on a training fold, select its layer on a validation fold, and report results on a disjoint test fold. On the trials each model gets wrong, probe accuracy exceeds the strict present-obligation baseline, 1/K = 0.125, by +0.196 (95% CI [+0.101, +0.296], bootstrapped over models). A query-entity counterfactual rules out token presence and recency. A score built from the sign of probe-output disagreement improves failure detection over the model's own confidence by +0.079 AUROC (95% CI [+0.036, +0.126]). Raw probe confidence gives no measurable improvement over model confidence. Steering the residual stream toward the probe-decoded binding, with no gold label, raises accuracy on all eight models tested by a mean of +0.168 (95% CI [+0.066, +0.280]). Where recent studies report that probe-detected errors are resistant to interventions, we find that in-context binding is a setting in which probes are actionable.

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

Can a trace explaining model execution also compute the changes needed for a specified alternative prediction? We propose trace-guided intervention search, which uses executable reasoning traces as an intermediate representation for intervention synthesis. A Specified-Foil Counterfactual edits past events so that a frozen temporal predictor selects a designated foil. Our method constructs facts and replacement values from completed original and foil executions and recovered unmet conditions. Proposal generation constructs edits and selects candidates within a fixed cap; exact replay verifies foil top-1 outcomes among retained edits and compositions. Implemented in LiFTER for continuous-time dynamic graphs (CTDGs) and TLogic for temporal knowledge graphs (TKGs), the method improves success over coordinate-based proposal generation by 13.7-34.7 percentage points on four CTDG datasets and 60.0-83.3 points on two TKG datasets under matched downstream search and a proposal cap of 32. Separate shared-candidate comparisons retain 85.7-93.6% of black-box greedy's CTDG success rate with 75.0-80.0% fewer predictor evaluations. A Pulse case study confirms simulator-level survival for five of six interventions. Executable traces thus provide both explanatory evidence and a reusable computational representation for constructing and testing specified alternatives.

Longitudinal single cell atlases now capture matched pre treatment and post treatment states from responders and non responders, presenting an opportunity to mechanistically explain why two patients on the same drug diverge. We introduce scDEFT (single cell Drug EFfect Transducer), which treats a drug as a conditioning operator on cell representations, enabling prediction and explanation. In scDEFT, feature wise linear modulation produces drug conditioned cell latents, learned under abundant per cell supervision and then frozen. Two independent heads aggregate those latents over shared transcriptional neighborhoods to predict drug induced state change and responder status. A backward stage ranks the latent dimensions by how strongly they separate responders from non responders and maps them to genes under a cell composition control. On a harmonized inflammatory bowel disease atlas of 1.16 million cells, three cohorts and two drug classes, scDEFT predicts state change at 45% of the baseline to reproducibility ceiling headroom and stratifies responders before treatment at AUROC 0.70, where standard predictors remain at chance. These predictions and the drivers behind them support target and co target nomination, patient stratification, and counterfactual prediction of unseen drug cohort effects.

Large language models (LLMs) are prone to hallucinating or misinterpreting facts, which impairs their usability in retrieval-augmented generation or data-to-text systems. We analyse how faithfulness of LLMs to provided context depends on how plausible they perceive the context to be (context-memory conflict). To better identify error patterns, we make use of the increased difficulty of non-English and low-resource language text generation and input data based on local knowledge, only partially captured in models' parametric knowledge. We let the models generate text in English, Czech, Slovak and Upper Sorbian from factual (FA), counterfactual (CFA) and fictional (FI) RDF triples containing local Czech and Slovak data. Contrary to our expectations, we observe only a weak context-memory conflict on the human-annotated sample. For Kimi K3 as an LLM judge, which agrees well with human annotations on the sample, counterfactual inputs receive only slightly lower faithfulness scores than factual ones (-0.05 on a 1-5 scale). We also find that a suboptimal choice of LLM judge would lead to overestimating the strength of the context-memory conflict.

Chunk-autoregressive video world models typically condition each generated chunk on one action. An action received during sampling must therefore wait for the next chunk, condition future solver evaluations on a state produced under the previous action, or trigger rollback that repeats completed evaluations. We introduce ActionSplice, an inference framework that formulates this problem as Counterfactual State Transport (CST). A lightweight corrector transports the interrupted backbone-native representation toward the matched state induced by the revised action at the same solver step. The world model and sampler remain frozen, and sampling resumes without replaying completed evaluations. The retargeting variant $\mathrm{CST}*{R}$ updates the entire active chunk, while the temporal-splicing variant $\mathrm{CST}*{T}$ preserves a temporal prefix and updates only the suffix. Across minWM-Wan Action2V and HY-WM1.5, $\mathrm{CST}*{R}$ reduces rollback-relative LPIPS by 61.5% and 75.9% relative to direct condition swapping. $\mathrm{CST}*{T}$ reduces suffix LPIPS by 56.1% and 77.5%, respectively, while providing $2.73\times$ and $1.69\times$ pixel-ready speedups over waiting. Under the HY-WorldPlay protocol, $\mathrm{CST}_{R}$ obtains a PSNR of 25.66 dB, an SSIM of 0.6902, and an LPIPS of 0.1337 against the original rollout.

Modus Tollens (MT) is a classical logical inference rule, while counterfactuals are hypothetical statements that are contrary to facts, and counterfactual reasoning is a process of reasoning based on counterfactuals. Negation is an indispensable core concept in them. In this paper, based on the logical systems LCOI&PLCOI with contradictory negation, opposite negation and intermediary negation, we propose three variants of Modus Tollens corresponding to distinct negation types, namely MTC: Modus Tollens based on contradictory negation, MTO: Modus Tollens based on opposite negation, and MTI: Modus Tollens based on intermediary negation. We define the implications within MTC, MTO and MTI, provide the truth value algorithms of MTC, MTO and MTI, and discuss the reducibility of these algorithms. To incorporate these three types of negation into counterfactuals and counterfactual reasoning, we differentiate counterfactuals into two types based on whether they possess logical negation, thereby proposing three counterfactuals and counterfactuals reasoning based on different logical negations. In this paper, we further argue that the three counterfactuals reasoning based on different logical negations have the same inference form as MTC, MTO and MTI, respectively. In other words, they share the same inference structure. As a result, the truth value algorithms for MTC, MTO and MTI can be as the truth value algorithms for the three counterfactuals reasoning based on different logical negations. The algorithms indicates that if the first premise of the reasoning is true, the truth values of the reasoning conclusions are identical to the truth values of the three negative premises in the reasoning premises, respectively. This reflects the consistency and accuracy of the truth value algorithms.

Explaining why a specific outcome occurred, and which inputs deserve the blame or credit, is central to philosophical, scientific, and policy analysis. Existing tools split into two camps. The theory of actual causality (AC) gives principled verdicts, but only for toy-sized models, because computing them requires enumerating counterfactual scenarios. Scalable attribution methods like SHAP (or even causal SHAP) at least partially ignore the causal structure that generated the data, and can give answers that conflict with a careful causal analysis. We close this gap with Probabilistic Causal Impact (PCI). PCI builds on actual causality and on Pearl's notions of probability of necessity and sufficiency, but recasts the question of explainability as an estimation problem on a probabilistic causal model that is easily approximated via Monte Carlo. By specifying a distribution over "candidate explanations," a distribution over counterfactual values, and a scoring function, PCI provides tractable, causally grounded, graded explanations, generalizing AC and Pearl's probability of causation as degenerate cases. We evaluate PCI in synthetic and real-world examples, spanning consistency checks with AC, scaling experiments, complex continuous-valued dynamical systems, and a real-world deployed causal machine learning model trained on millions of datapoints.

Seeing frames in order does not mean representing time. Modern VideoLMs receive ordered video streams, yet their main supervision acts on generated text rather than video-token representations where event dynamics should first emerge. This mismatch allows models to learn temporal answers from shortcuts such as objects, scenes, and language priors, without requiring internal video representations to capture event progression. To address this, we propose VT-Contrast, a representation-level temporal counterfactual objective for VideoLMs. Its design asks where temporal supervision should act and what temporal differences it should expose. VT-Contrast supervises selected late-layer last-frame video tokens, where temporal information is expected to be integrated before language generation, and contrasts order-preserving views with same-video reordered counterfactuals graded by Kendall tau distance. It requires no architectural changes, is compatible with diverse VideoLM training tasks, and improves overall performance across temporal understanding benchmarks. Our code is available at https://github.com/ANDgate99/VT-Contrast.

An image editor may satisfy every regional plausibility constraint separately even when no single latent explanation fits the complete output. We formalize this local-to-global failure using a common witness grade and witness nerve. The framework separates auditing from causal identification: shared exogeneity alone allows every coupling of the regime marginals, whereas an externally justified witness relation yields sharp partial-identification bounds for prespecified image features. Helly-type arguments provide short incompatibility certificates for quasiconvex losses, heterogeneous action strata, and finite witness atlases; a blocker-hypergraph formula gives exact repair counts. Simultaneous confidence regions for the regime marginals give finite-sample outer coverage of the complete identified interval. Controlled MNIST, Morpho-MNIST, and smallNORB studies demonstrate the predicted local-global separation, while synthetic experiments test sharp bounds, certificate recovery, and structured computation. The method audits a declared feature relation and does not identify unrestricted pixel-level counterfactuals.

World models have progressed from compact latent dynamics to generative, controllable, and interactive simulators of embodied environments. However, high predictive likelihood and visual fidelity do not necessarily ensure that a model preserves the evidence required for safe decision-making. This perspective identifies three structural mismatches in current world modeling: likelihood versus risk, prediction versus intervention, and finite-horizon prediction versus accumulated consequences. We propose the Risk-Informed World Model (RIWM) as a decision-centric research direction for safety-critical embodied systems. RIWM organizes world modeling around consequences, intervention, epistemic uncertainty, and recoverability, and integrates four interdependent capabilities: decision-relevant representation, counterfactual reasoning, safety-critical episodic memory, and runtime safety assurance. It distinguishes physical, social, and operational consequences while using epistemic uncertainty to qualify the evidence supporting action. We further discuss open challenges in identifying consequential futures, validating counterfactual reasoning, maintaining revisable safety memories, translating learned consequences into executable constraints, and determining when evidence is sufficient to act. This perspective argues that future world models should move beyond predicting likely futures toward identifying which futures matter, revising judgments through experience, and recognizing when to act, revise, sense, defer, or abstain.

Accountability means a decision can be examined, justified, and contested. LLMs make this hard: fluent output may be ungrounded, incomplete, or unfaithful to the decision process. Achieving accountability requires verified rationales (how was the decision reached), assumptions (what was assumed rather than known), policy consistency (the same treatment for the same facts), and pivotal conditions (what would change the outcome). We introduce self-faithfulness as an automatic test of accountability: changing the pivotal conditions should change the decision. We examine accountable AI through clinical trial matching, a high-stakes task central to evidence-based medicine. Although LLM-based matchers match patients to trials reasonably accurately, they apply decision policies inconsistently and produce rationales that are unfaithful to their own decisions. We introduce VERDICT, an LLM-based agent that translates a decision task, its constraints, and its policy into Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT), then derives the decision with SMT and MaxSMT solvers -- so policies are applied consistently and decisions are accountable by construction. Across a SIGIR 2016-derived dataset and TREC 2021, VERDICT achieves the strongest decision accuracy among LLM-only and neurosymbolic baselines, applies policies with perfect consistency, and produces clinician-preferred rationales grounded in explicit assumptions and pivotal conditions, with improved counterfactual self-faithfulness.

Counterfactual audits are the standard tool for checking whether a clinical agent treats demographically distinct but clinically identical patients differently. They report a flip rate: how often an action changes when only the patient descriptor changes. We show that this quantity is uninterpretable on its own. Re-running an identical condition ten times over sixteen vignettes (same narrative, same descriptor string, nothing varied) moved a clinical agent's action in 8.7% of outcome-vignette cells, and instability was heterogeneous across actions by a factor of eight, from 0.022 for ICU escalation to 0.179 for controlled-substance caution. No demographic contrast in our data was distinguishable from that floor. A second model gives a pooled floor of 6.7% and ranks the six actions almost identically (Spearman 0.94, exact p=0.017), so the floor is not one system's artefact. Majority-vote aggregation over five draws removes 39% of it and then flattens, and a null simulation attributes the residue to heterogeneous per-cell rates, so replication mitigates without eliminating. Any counterfactual fairness estimate reported without a per-action floor beside it therefore cannot be read as evidence of disparity. The measurements were taken with FairMedAgent, an evaluation harness for disparity in the actions of clinical LLM agents whose estimand, the within-range counterfactual flip rate, counts only flips between actions a published decision rule admits and a clinician has adjudicated. That estimand requires band adjudication, which is under way; no disparity result is claimed here. Each synthetic vignette runs a six-stage trajectory (five model-facing decisions around a deterministic environment step) under fixed-form conditions spanning race, sex, age, insurance, English proficiency, and their intersections. The harness, the floor protocol, and every analysis script are released.

Machine learning systems deployed for credit, hiring, and resource distribution are increasingly subject to regulatory oversight from policies such as the EU AI Act and GDPR. Current fairness governance practices rely on observational fairness metrics, post-hoc explainability, and immutable audit logs, but provide limited support for causal attribution and efficient evidentiary verification. We introduce Causal Evidentiary Governance (CEG), a framework in which regulated institutions commit to a versioned directed acyclic graph (DAG) that partitions causal pathways into allowable and disallowed groups. The Causal Harm Rate measures prediction variation attributable to disallowed causal pathways. Each decision is accompanied by a signed Decision-Evidence Packet (DEP), cryptographically binding the prediction to a digest of the published DAG and path-specific attributions. DEP digests can be appended to a Merkle tree to enable logarithmic-cost inclusion proofs. We validate CEG through a two-layer empirical methodology using demographic summaries from four years of PMA credit supervisory data to construct 10,000 synthetic credit applicants across four strategic DAG counterfactuals. Causal Harm Rate isolates injected causal effects more clearly than demographic parity or equalized odds. Cross-model validation and ablation studies assess robustness. Evaluation on the German Credit dataset shows that harm associated with specific causal pathways can be substantially understated by associational fairness metrics. Finally, a proof-of-concept implementation demonstrates operationally plausible throughput and highlights relevant performance tradeoffs.

Personalized video recommendation predicts user preference at the video level, while temporal video grounding localizes query-relevant moments. However, strong localization does not establish whether the retrieved moment constitutes valid evidence for recommending the video to a particular user. We study counterfactual behavior-grounded evidence retrieval, which separates where personalized evidence occurs from whether such evidence exists and evaluates whether model predictions respond consistently when that evidence is replaced. We introduce CBGER-10K, containing 5,000 controlled factual--counterfactual pairs for 3,026 users, where each pair replaces only the focal behavior-supported segment while preserving the user, temporal position, and hard distractors. We further propose CBGER, a compact framework that decouples segment-level localization from video-level evidence estimation and learns both through structured counterfactual supervision. CBGER achieves $0.4432$ MRR, $0.6977$ Pair Accuracy, and $0.6987$ Intervention Consistency across five adapted personalized-highlight and temporal-grounding baselines. Notably, compared with QD-DETR, its MRR improvement is not statistically significant, while Pair Accuracy improves by $11.03$ points. These results show that accurate temporal localization does not necessarily imply reliable personalized evidence existence, motivating explicit evaluation of Whether alongside Where.

As large language models increasingly act through external tools, deciding when to call a tool has become a central problem alongside deciding how to use it. Unnecessary tool calls introduce latency, cost, retrieval noise, and error propagation, while missed calls hurt knowledge-intensive queries or questions requiring up-to-date evidence. Existing methods typically trigger tools from absolute query or generation signals, such as difficulty, confidence, or final task reward, and therefore lack an explicit estimate of the instance-level marginal benefit of tool use. We propose CoBRA, a counterfactual boundary-learning framework for tool-augmented language models. CoBRA first constructs internal and external experts from the same base model, collects paired trajectories, and estimates the reward margin between answering with and without tools. This margin partitions data into internal-favored, external-favored, and ambiguous cases. CoBRA then uses clear-margin samples for Boundary-Aware Cold-Start SFT, followed by MARS-RL with reference-split rollouts and counterfactual marginal advantages to optimize boundary decisions. Experiments with retrieval as the main tool on Qwen3-4B show that CoBRA improves tool-use efficiency and boundary-sensitive answer accuracy while maintaining strong performance on tool-dependent out-of-distribution questions.

As agentic systems become compound systems, increasingly important decisions move above task execution itself: when should a higher-level controller preserve the strategy guiding another process, and when should it revise it? We study this meta-level control problem in a hierarchical latent reasoner whose manager can retain or replace a commitment governing lower-level computation. Across three precommitted training seeds, learned revision timing produces qualitatively different policies, ranging from an almost deterministic early clock to substantially more state conditioned schedule distributions, yet none outperforms the best forced timing policy evaluated on the same frozen checkpoint. This separates state dependence from decision value: a controller can vary its actions with internal state without turning that variation into a reproducible task-performance benefit. A deeper intervention study on the original checkpoint shows that timing itself is consequential and order-sensitive, while exhaustive enumeration reveals that a strong fixed schedule captures most of the measurable value available from timing at this decision budget. Counterfactual PERSIST/REPLAN diagnostics further show why score-level evidence can be misleading when predictability is dominated by decision position rather than within-position discrimination. Together, these results argue that learned meta-level control should be evaluated along three separate axes: whether its score depends on state, whether that dependence changes realized behavior, and whether those changes capture outcome value beyond a strong non-adaptive policy.

Long-tail autonomous driving failures are often framed as rare-object recognition errors. We argue that this view is incomplete: the decision-critical question is not only whether a model recognizes an unusual object, but whether it infers how that object changes the ego vehicle's feasible high-level actions. We formalize this problem as decision-level driving affordance prediction, where a model maps a front-view image, ego-motion history, and navigation command to a structured longitudinal--lateral meta-action. To evaluate this capability, we introduce CoLT-Drive, a 3,536-sample counterfactual long-tail benchmark that inserts rare objects into otherwise fixed driving scenes and measures whether models predict acceptable action pairs. To improve deployable small VLMs, we propose KPA, a knowledge-preserving adaptation framework that combines structured perception-to-decision prompting, SLERP-based expert merging, and RegMoE, a regime-aware LoRA mixture-of-experts module. KPA preserves the pretrained model's open-world knowledge while allocating lightweight adaptation capacity to different driving decision regimes. Experiments on an in-domain driving split and CoLT-Drive show that KPA achieves 60.8% pair accuracy on CoLT-Drive, outperforming the pretrained Qwen3-VL-2B baseline (50.3%) and LoRA SFT (32.4%) while maintaining competitive in-domain accuracy. Our benchmark and code are available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/tangzx2024/CoLT-Drive and https://github.com/tangzhengxu/CoLT-Drive.

Masked diffusion language models predict tokens from a partially observed response canvas, enabling bidirectional conditioning and parallel token refinement. Yet standard masked-diffusion decoders use a rigid inference interface: the number of masked positions allocated to the answer is fixed before generation begins. Choosing this length is difficult. A short canvas can truncate reasoning or code, while a long canvas wastes computation and can perturb denoising. We introduce CARVE (Counterfactual-Aware Reveal with Verified Expansion), a training-free variable-length algorithm for masked diffusion LMs. Starting from a shorter canvas, CARVE can grow the response during decoding by inserting additional [MASK] positions. Rather than keeping every insertion, CARVE tests a candidate expanded canvas and asks a counterfactual question: would the model make similar predictions for the unresolved positions in the original canvas if the extra masked space were present? The inserted masks are kept only when they induce low Jensen-Shannon (JS) divergence on aligned unresolved positions. This makes length growth a verified stability decision rather than a pure confidence heuristic. CARVE applies without retraining to both full-canvas and blockwise diffusion decoders. Across code generation and mathematical reasoning benchmarks, CARVE consistently improves average performance over fixed-length baselines across all evaluated model families. Crucially, CARVE achieves these accuracy gains while reducing inference cost, reaching half the FLOPs of fixed-length decoding in some settings.

Recent advances in Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have greatly improved video understanding, yet their ability to reason about human-centered social situations remains limited. Existing benchmarks typically rely on videos with a single observed trajectory, making it difficult to determine whether models truly understand social dynamics or merely exploit recurring narrative patterns. We introduce SocialReasonBench, a video multiple-choice QA benchmark for evaluating socially grounded reasoning in scenarios derived from interactive narratives. Built from gameplay videos of Detroit: Become Human, the benchmark leverages branching storylines where player decisions lead to alternative social outcomes that can be checked against the game's own script, flowchart, and recorded branches. We develop a multi-agent curation pipeline that localizes socially meaningful clips, grounds answer labels in game-state signals, and generates theory-guided questions with diagnostic distractors. SocialReasonBench covers seven reasoning dimensions, including intent recognition, emotional empathy, moral dilemma, counterfactual reasoning, and causal antecedent. Experiments on contemporary LMMs show that models perform reasonably well on basic social understanding but struggle with counterfactual and causal reasoning. Further ablation and diagnostic error analyses reveal that models often depend on incomplete modality cues and fall into reasoning traps such as visual shortcuts, highlighting a gap between observable event recognition and deeper reasoning over latent social states.

Understanding which training samples influence a generated image is an important problem in generative modeling. In flow matching, training samples influence the generated image through the velocity field along the generation trajectory. Removing samples to examine their counterfactual influence changes the velocity field, and the resulting effect on the final image depends on how the change propagates through the trajectory. Consequently, local changes in the velocity field do not necessarily predict the final counterfactual effect. This work investigates attribution in flow-matching models through a hybrid analytical--learned approach, and uses it to derive trajectory-based attribution scores at the cluster level. We evaluate these attribution scores using independently retrained leave-one-cluster-out (LOCO) models, and compare with several attribution baselines using two different flow-matching latent spaces. Our experiments show that semantic similarity constitutes a strong baseline, while the closed-form trajectory-based attribution is competitive in some metrics without requiring counterfactual retraining or model gradients. Our results show that attribution in flow matching depends not only on semantic similarity to training samples, but also on the latent representation, trajectory dynamics, and how influence is propagated to the final output.

Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) increasingly calls for actionable counterfactual recourse, yet current methodologies face challenges related to causal invalidity, excessive cognitive burden, and predictive failure. Exhaustive causal search algorithms often require modifications to multiple attributes, whereas additive attribution-guided methods, such as SHAP, ignore higher-order feature synergies, leading to suboptimal predictive momentum and diffuse intervention effort in complex nonlinear models, such as XGBoost. To bridge this gap, we introduce actionable case-based feature importance (A-CBFI), a diagnosis-prescription integrated framework for tabular machine learning. Grounded in structural causal models (SCMs), A-CBFI isolates synergistic interaction bottlenecks and releases suppressive structural locks, translating them into targeted interventions. By mathematically separating the active user intervention space (L_{\mathrm{active}}) from downstream effects and concentrating over 98.3% of the intervention effort on diagnosed root causes, A-CBFI enables highly targeted interventions. Empirical evaluations across the financial and healthcare domains demonstrate that A-CBFI reduces the active human intervention burden by 77.0% while maintaining comparable global recourse cost to exhaustive causal baselines. By prioritizing the diagnosed causal bottlenecks, A-CBFI provides targeted and actionable recourse while maintaining causal validity and achieving full relative convergence across all causally feasible instances.

A single training example's contribution to a finished model is normally estimated rather than measured, because measuring it takes two expensive full pre-training runs that differ in one row of one batch. We ran that counterfactual 24 times at a small scale. We trained 32 GPT-2 models at 124M parameters from scratch on OpenWebText, over four conditions and eight seeds. At step 200 of 9,536, at peak learning rate, we replaced one row of a 256-row batch with a fixed context injection carrying a 194-token passage. The three injected conditions are: 1. fluent prose with a corpus-attested subject, 2. fluent prose with a fabricated subject matched to it within 0.14% on full-batch gradient delta, and 3. random keyboard characters. The fourth condition is an uninjected twin. The passage is learned from one exposure and then decays. Fifty steps after injection, the arm that saw a passage predicts it better than the arm that did not by 0.039 and 0.044 nats of cross-entropy on the passage, at eight of eight seeds with p < 0.0001. At the final step we do not detect that difference for either passage, at p = 0.25 and p = 0.71, against minimum detectable effects of 0.025 and 0.079 nats, nor between the two passages, at p = 0.54. Every geometric measure we report is taken after that decay. Our pre-registered contrast on interpolation loss barrier is +0.0068 with p = 0.509, against a minimum detectable effect of 0.032 barrier units. Held-out cross-entropy is -0.00044 with p = 0.310. Per-layer centered kernel alignment does not detectably separate any condition at any layer. Weight displacement reaches 44.1% of the seed-to-seed Euclidean distance and is 92% settled by the midpoint of training, while the barrier reaches 3.0% of the seed-to-seed barrier. Those two figures sit roughly 15 times apart, and that is a lower bound. The injection relocates the model within its basin without moving it out.

Visual Counterfactual Explanations (VCEs) aim to explain image classifiers by generating minimally edited and realistic versions of an input image that change the classifier's prediction. Existing VCE methods are inherently classifier-dependent and therefore susceptible to classifier biases and failure modes, such as sensitivity to shortcut features and calibration errors. In this paper, we propose a classifier-free approach for visual counterfactual generation based on Contrastive Analysis (CA). Given two datasets corresponding to different classes (e.g., healthy and patients), we disentangle the generative factors that are common across the two datasets from those that are salient to each dataset, and generate counterfactual images by swapping only the salient factors. By operating directly on data distributions rather than decision boundaries, our method provides model-agnostic VCEs that are less sensitive to classifier biases. Our approach leverages the high-quality synthesis and well-structured latent space of StyleGAN2. We use the feature space F, instead than the usual W-space, to improve detail preservation. Unlike conventional CA approaches, which typically assume salient factors in only one dataset, we introduce an adapted framework and loss functions for VCE that allow multiple salient factors in each dataset. We evaluate our method on three medical imaging datasets and demonstrate superior counterfactual generation quality compared to existing approaches.

We ask whether a small, directly addressable hidden-state intervention can place a learned world model on an intended counterfactual future and then let the model's own dynamics carry that future forward. In a controlled two-object collision environment, we study a 192-dimensional recurrent model trained on factual and locally edited counterfactual trajectories. Candidate carriers are learned from training-only counterfactual-minus-factual hidden differences, and an affine map predicts carrier coordinates from the factual state and requested edit without access to the native counterfactual hidden state at test time. For bounded single-component velocity edits, rank 4 is the smallest tested rank on the preregistered grid that satisfies the development criteria. A one-shot rank-4 patch launches a 12-transition autonomous rollout without future observations, teacher forcing, repeated hidden-state correction, or physical-state clamping. The frozen procedure satisfies the preregistered 2-of-3 fresh-checkpoint replication rule and remains reusable at nearby anchors. The same Single-derived carrier and Single-only affine map also support bounded same-object two-component requests. Across the matched training regimes, broader counterfactual support was associated mainly with better Joint rollout accuracy and more additive Joint hidden responses. Composition-related structure is enriched in the rank-4 subspace but is not confined to it, and local recurrent diagnostics show strong one-step coupling from the carrier to the rest of the hidden state. A position-edit stress test fails the required specificity controls. Together, these results support a compact dynamics-effective intervention-entry interface, not a closed four-dimensional state or an intrinsic state dimension.

On-policy distillation (OPD) supervises a student language model on trajectories sampled from its current policy, but assigns equal credit to response tokens with unequal supervision value. Selective OPD addresses this limitation by allocating supervision non-uniformly across response tokens according to their estimated training value. Most existing criteria, however, focus primarily on optimization need, such as uncertainty or teacher-student disagreement, while task relevance, namely whether the supervision is tied to the semantic content of the current input, remains less directly characterized as a complementary dimension. To address this gap, we introduce Counterfactual Relevance for On-Policy Distillation (CROP), which operationalizes task relevance through a paraphrase-calibrated counterfactual sensitivity margin. For each source prompt, CROP constructs a validated original-paraphrase-counterfactual triplet, holds the student rollout fixed, and measures each response position by its sensitivity to a task-relevant condition change calibrated by its sensitivity to a meaning-preserving rewrite. Matched selection controls show that CROP identifies more useful supervision positions than random or lowest-relevance selection, while component comparisons confirm the value of both counterfactual sensitivity and paraphrase calibration. Across two teacher-student settings, CROP improves aggregate performance by 1.92 and 2.96 points over the strongest non-CROP selector. These results support task relevance as a complementary criterion for selective OPD and establish CROP as a model-internal, contrast-specific method for allocating token-level supervision.

Many operational decisions are sequences of interventions under a cumulative resource limit, such as a maintenance schedule within a crew-hour budget. Choosing among them calls for the outcome and the cumulative cost each would produce, counterfactual quantities identified from observational data. Two strategies with the same expected cost can exceed the budget at very different rates, so constraining the mean does not bound how often an overrun occurs. Prior two-step architectures, recently extended to continuous doses, constrain the mean cost rather than its tail and allocate at a single decision point. Methods that do bound a cost tail take its distribution from a specified model rather than identifying it from data. We present a predict-then-optimize framework. In the prediction step, any estimator returning an outcome value and a cost distribution supplies what the decision rule consumes, so the predictor is interchangeable. In the optimization step, a chance-constrained selection over a finite candidate set bounds the probability that the cumulative cost exceeds the budget. That tail does not decompose across stages, so each strategy is scored whole. Sweeping the tolerated violation probability traces a safety-utility frontier, and distribution-free finite-sample bounds cover violation and outcome shortfall. Four of five environments, spanning clinical treatment and equipment maintenance, supply exact counterfactual ground truth; the fifth carries real outcomes from a digital-health micro-randomized trial. Across them, the rule holds the budget where a point-estimate rule overruns it, at an outcome cost the frontier makes explicit. All code is available at https://github.com/mfriendly/counterfactual-chance-selection

Perturbation methods explain model decisions by measuring prediction changes under altered inputs, but response magnitude tells us only how much a model reacts, not what that reaction means. The same magnitude can support the final factual-counterfactual difference, oppose it, or arise strongly along the perturbation path yet vanish at the endpoint. We therefore track how the contrast develops as paired inputs are progressively revealed, using the final contrast to interpret the trajectory. We introduce DECAF (Decomposition of Evidence, Contradiction, And Fragility), which routes aligned, opposed, and endpoint-null responses into evidence E, contradiction C, and fragility F. The decomposition preserves ordinary magnitude exactly, Abs = E + C + F, and is unique under endpoint-relative axioms. Across controlled vision and tabular settings, the three components track independently measured behavior. In a 72-model ImageNet-9 audit, we compare cases with nearly identical response magnitude but different independently measured behaviors. The largest DECAF component agrees with an observed behavior in 96.4% of cases, compared with 35.0% for magnitude alone. Changing only the reveal path increases total response by nearly 80%, yet evidence barely changes while fragility grows by more than 4x. On FunnyBirds and ImageNet-1k, short forward-only DECAF trajectories outperform the tested general-purpose attribution baselines. On a 1B-scale DINOv2 model, a short trajectory matches a strong gradient-based baseline with 4.75x lower wall time and 2.36x lower peak memory.

Clinical prediction models are often developed as if the outcome of interest were cleanly observed for every patient. This assumption fails when treatment decisions make the clinically relevant outcome permanently unobservable. As a case study of this problem, we consider post-cardiac-arrest neurological prognostication using a cohort of 2,497 patients, including 1,429 patients whose outcomes were rendered indeterminate by treatment decisions. These patients with indeterminate outcomes were reviewed by independent clinical experts, who provided their guesses of counterfactual outcomes about what would have happened to the patients. We refer to these patients as uncertain cases. We also have patients for whom we observe their clinically relevant outcomes; we refer to these patients as certain cases. We propose a framework for evaluating prediction models that explicitly splits the evaluation between certain and uncertain cases. Here, we cannot easily evaluate both types of cases in a uniform manner as the available target labels differ. We then propose a simple prediction model that uses target labels from both certain and uncertain cases in a manner that allows us to trade off between them. Across the proposed neural model and a collection of tabular baselines, models with similar certain-case AUROC can nevertheless differ substantially in both certain-case Brier score and their probability estimates for uncertain cases. Improving alignment with target labels of uncertain cases for our proposed model generally comes at the cost of worse accuracy on certain cases, highlighting an explicit tradeoff that standard evaluation conceals. These results show that when treatment decisions determine whether clinically meaningful outcomes remain observable, conventional evaluation metrics can miss important failure modes in the very patients for whom prognostic support matters most.

Prompted attribute agreement is widely used as evidence of text-to-music controllability, yet a requested attribute may occur simply because it is already common in the model's output distribution. We introduce a matched counterfactual evaluation that separates target occurrence from instruction-attributable control. Each family contains a neutral input that omits the scored attribute and two otherwise matched inputs that swap the requested target. All three are rendered through frozen native-interface adapters with a shared seed. Applied to global key and beat grouping in three open systems, this design changes the empirical conclusion. ACE-Step 1.5 and Stable Audio 3 Medium exhibit substantial key control, whereas LeVo2 does not. For beat grouping, the same models redirect toward the rare three-beat target, but high four-beat agreement is largely inherited from neutral outputs: Stable Audio 3 produces four-beat grouping in 0.97 of neutral cases but only 0.56 under its explicit four-beat treatment. Off-attribute placebos, external recognizer validation, blind expert annotation, and multi-seed sentinels support the attribution. When targets have unequal output priors, agreement describes what a model produced, while matched neutral and target-swap contrasts test whether the instruction changed it.

Driving world models are often interpreted as counterfactual simulators for observed driving episodes: given a factual driving log, they are asked what would have happened under an alternative ego action. In this paper, we identify a fundamental mismatch between this goal and direct action-conditioned prediction. The direct prediction uses the shared history and the alternative action but not the factual continuation observed after that history. It can therefore generate a plausible future without preserving what actually happened in this episode. We formalize this gap using the causal recipe of abduction, action, and prediction and study it in a setting with a short time horizon, where the alternative ego action does not alter how surrounding agents evolve. To make the gap measurable, we construct a controlled simulation benchmark with factual outcomes and matched counterfactual outcomes. Across two representative world models, direct predictions fail to match the counterfactual ground truth, supporting our analysis. As a constructive check of this analysis, we introduce a deliberately simple, training-free pipeline that moves observed evidence into the counterfactual view and lets the frozen model complete what remains unknown. Even this simple construction raises the overall recovered fraction substantially and reduces perceptual distance to the matched counterfactual on both models. We hope this work draws attention to this gap and motivates better counterfactual prediction methods for driving world models.

Counterfactual video understanding evaluates whether models grasp physical and commonsense regularities. However, existing multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks inadvertently leak target events through their questions and candidate options. This reduces the core challenge from active discovery to text-guided verification. In this paper, we present FADE, an effective training framework for counterfactual discovery and explanation. Our method is built on an evidence-first, two-stage training paradigm. First, evidence-internalized supervised fine-tuning grounds the model's predictions in decisive visual anomalies. Second, we apply a fading-anchor reinforcement learning strategy that progressively removes textual guidance, compelling the model to independently discover and explain evidence. To rigorously evaluate this capability, we also introduce an effective pipeline that converts existing MCQ datasets into aligned MCQ, open-ended question answering (OQA), and captioning tasks without requiring additional data curation. Our simple approach yields strong results. Using Qwen3-VL-8B as the baseline, FADE achieves state-of-the-art strict paired scores across all three tasks on DualityVidQA-test and IPV-Bench, outperforming GPT-5.6. In specific, when transitioning from constrained MCQs to unconstrained OQA and captioning, our model demonstrates remarkable robustness. Its performance retention is 90.4% and 67.4% on DualityVidQA-test-substantially higher than the 48.1% and 30.7% retained by GPT-5.6. We hope this simple framework can serve as a solid baseline for future research in unconstrained counterfactual video understanding.

Proteolysis-targeting chimeras (PROTACs) induce protein degradation by recruiting a target protein to an E3 ubiquitin ligase, making degradation a joint outcome of the degrader molecule and its biological context. Although public databases contain thousands of structured molecule-target-E3 records, degradation measurements are available for only a small fraction of them. Existing supervised approaches therefore leave most recorded chemical-biological relationships unused. We introduce DegradeQuery, a context-aware prediction framework that converts these label-missing records into a pretraining signal. Its counterfactual tuple pretraining objective contrasts recorded tuples with alternatives formed by replacing the target, the E3 ligase, or both, enabling the model to learn contextual associations without assigning activity pseudo-labels. The resulting representation is then fine-tuned to predict degradation from the complete molecule-target-E3 context. On the official PROTAC-8K benchmark, DegradeQuery achieves an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.9065 and an accuracy of 0.8500, outperforming the compared methods. Controlled analyses further show that the improvement is primarily attributable to tuple-level pretraining, can be recovered using only label-missing records, and remains complementary to protein language model representations. These findings demonstrate that incompletely labeled PROTAC databases contain useful relational supervision and provide a practical route for learning context-aware degradation predictors from scarce experimental labels.

Self-improvement for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) is typically driven by reward-based methods that provide only coarse scalar feedback. Distillation offers a richer alternative through dense token-level supervision, but in the visual domain it usually depends on privileged context constructed using external annotations and tools, or stronger models. We introduce \textbf{CVPD} (Contrastive Counterfactual Visual Process Distillation), which, to the best of our knowledge, is the first fully self-contained framework for dense, on-policy, token-level visual self-distillation for MLLMs. CVPD identifies visual blind spots where zooming into a region changes and sharpens the model's answer distribution, while removing the same region leaves the full-image behavior largely unchanged. Such regions reveal perceptual information that the model can encode but fails to consistently utilize under full-image conditioning. We propose a three-gate Counterfactual Criterion that identifies these regions directly from the model's own responses and converts them into dense contrastive supervision for self-distillation. On Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct, CVPD outperforms six self-evolving baselines across twelve benchmarks, including methods that rely on external GPT-4o supervision, without a single regression. It achieves gains of $+3.60$ on OCRBench, $+3.38$ on MMStar Fine-Grained Perception, and $+3.08$ on MMStar Logical Reasoning, while maintaining or improving performance on broader multimodal benchmarks.

Interactive video world models generate rollouts autoregressively under an action stream, yet they are trained and evaluated almost exclusively on factual prediction. We study counterfactual generation inside the rollout: given a trajectory the model has itself generated, what would have happened had the actions differed from step t* onward? We formalize noise-coupled twin rollouts --- a factual and a counterfactual branch sharing the generated prefix and the future exogenous noise sequence, diverging only in the action stream at an intervention point. Because the factual branch is self-generated, its exogenous noise is known exactly: the abduction step of Pearl's counterfactual procedure is exact by construction, sidestepping the approximate-inversion problem faced by editing-based pipelines. Noise coupling further turns the minimal-change principle into a per-sample verifiable property: we define a spatiotemporal locality metric that penalizes divergence outside the causal descendants of the intervention, computable against simulator ground truth without a learned judge. Forking the simulator state at t* yields ground-truth counterfactual re-renders, which we use as verifiable rewards for post-training. This note establishes the formal framework, metric definitions, and positioning; experiments are forthcoming.

Visual counterfactual explanations aim to change classifier decisions through realistic and localized edits while preserving decision-irrelevant content. Existing DDPM-based methods typically perform classifier-guided editing along a long reverse denoising trajectory. The changing noise levels make semantic editability and spatial control difficult to balance, and the editable state is noisy, whereas the target classifier is trained on clean images. As a result, these methods require either costly recursive denoising or low-quality one-step estimates to obtain classifier-facing clean images. We propose FiRe, a Fixed-noise Refinement framework for visual counterfactual explanations. Rather than following a reverse denoising trajectory, FiRe maps the input to a fixed noise level and iteratively refines the noisy state at that level. To provide clean images for classifier guidance, FiRe first adapts Pixel Mean Flow to visual counterfactual explanation, enabling direct clean-image prediction from noisy states. To make fixed-noise refinement produce minimal and localized counterfactual edits, FiRe introduces three FiRe-specific controls: a dynamic dual-mask strategy, adaptive guidance, and early stopping, which determine where edits accumulate, which changes become visible, and when refinement stops. Experiments on five tasks across three datasets show that, compared with the strongest recent baseline, FiRe achieves about 3$\times$ faster online inference and 8$\times$ fewer FLOPs while obtaining comparable or state-of-the-art counterfactual quality.

The emergence of social finance (SocialFi) transforms online communities into complex socio-economic systems. Within these spaces, collective decisions shape a "digital commons" characterized by social capital (e.g., community trust) and financial health (e.g., market liquidity). Governing such hybrid ecosystems is challenging because real-world interventions are costly and irreversible. While counterfactual simulation is essential for exploring alternative governance strategies, existing approaches fail to capture the non-linear interplay between governance rules, individual behaviors, and emergent economic outcomes. To systematically unpack this complexity, we operationalize the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework as our theoretical foundation, synthesizing prior literature with insights from formative expert interviews. Built on this framework, we present SocialFiVis, an IAD-embedded visual analytics sandbox. It introduces a robust model to quantify the dual-track digital commons, coupled with a two-phase simulation engine. This engine combines LLM-derived personas with a mechanism-guided Perception-Reasoning-Action (PRA) runtime to simulate heterogeneous, context-aware agents empirically grounded in the retained messaging cohort. A hierarchical multi-view interface with interpretable reasoning pathways enables community operators to explore counterfactual policies and trace system-level outcomes back to individual behavioral rationales. We evaluate SocialFiVis through two case studies, a user study, and follow-up interviews. Results demonstrate that SocialFiVis supports fine-grained behavioral attribution and helps explain emergent phenomena such as the structural decoupling of social capital and the resilience of messaging members under localized governance shocks.

Fairness audits for LLM-based recommenders have largely focused on observable outputs, implicitly assuming that stable recommendations reflect stable internal processing. We challenge this assumption with FairGap, the first benchmark to jointly evaluate recommendation fairness at two levels: observable output shift (OBS) and hidden representation shift (IBS), measured through controlled counterfactual identity probes across gender, age, and race. Their relationship is summarized via Representation-Output Alignment (ROA), with quadrant diagnostics for identifying user-level hidden-output mismatch. Applied to six open-weight LLM families across three domains, FairGap reveals pervasive hidden-output decoupling: ROA rarely exceeds 0.22, and a non-negligible user population shows stable outputs despite substantial internal shifts, a mode that output-only audits cannot detect by design. Further, activation steering that reduces IBS by up to 8x simultaneously worsens OBS, demonstrating a fundamental tension between internal and output-level fairness that existing frameworks are unequipped to diagnose.

Large language models (LLMs) are high-value assets that can be derived through redeployment, fine-tuning, quantization, or further alignment. Because deployed LLMs are commonly exposed only through query APIs, ownership verification must often rely on black-box text responses. This setting is difficult: generations are open-ended and can vary across repeated queries, while existing black-box fingerprints rely on signals that are fragile under a final-response interface, including full-text matching, soft behavioral features, or model-specific prompts designed not to transfer. We propose TCF (Targeted Counterfactual Fingerprinting), a black-box LLM fingerprinting framework that converts open-ended generation comparison into constrained-answer targeted counterfactual transfer. TCF restricts each verification query to a finite answer space, reducing the surface-form ambiguity that enters the verification score, and optimizes a prompt perturbation toward a counterfactual target different from the protected model's clean answer on the original prompt. Verification reduces to checking whether the suspect model's parsed final answer matches the recorded target. We introduce the source-model counterfactual margin (SCM), a protected-model-only quantity that certifies the target is unlikely before the perturbation and likely after it; SCM controls target selection, perturbation stopping, and fingerprint filtering. Under explicit derived-preservation and independent-transfer budgets motivated by local behavioral closeness, we derive a target-accuracy gap between derived and independent models. Across four LLM families, TCF achieves an average AUC of 0.9861, improving over TRAP, ProFLingo, and ZeroPrint by 0.07 to 0.19.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) should answer from concrete image evidence rather than language priors, dataset shortcuts, or irrelevant visual context. Existing perception-aware post-training methods encourage image use through global perturbations or attention proxies, but they do not test whether a sampled answer causally depends on the local evidence that supports it. We propose Counterfactual Evidence Disentanglement (CED), a training-time evidence audit for VLM grounding. For each response, CED neutralizes an object-centric Evidence Region and compares the resulting support drop against matched non-evidence Regions. We combine this signal with answer correctness inside GRPO, rewarding correct answers that rely on the evidence path rather than shortcut or nuisance paths. CED uses weak object-level proposals, requires no question-specific evidence annotations, and adds no inference-time overhead. Across nine public benchmarks and four backbones, CED outperforms prior RL-based post-training methods, with targeted analyses verifying its object-centric signal.

Large language models (LLMs) have increasingly supported response generation grounded in user-provided knowledge spanning heterogeneous structures. However, existing benchmarks provide limited assessment of whether LLMs can faithfully perform multi-hop reasoning chains across such knowledge contexts while remaining robust to variations in their input order. We introduce TKFQA, a factuality consistency benchmark comprising 10,130 question-answering (QA) pairs grounded in tables, texts, and knowledge graphs (KGs). Each example is constructed from an explicit counterfactual reasoning chain, enabling the joint evaluation of answer correctness, reasoning-chain accuracy, and robustness to different input-order. An extensive evaluation of 14 open- and closed-source LLMs reveals that state-of-the-art models exhibit limited reasoning-chain accuracy and remain sensitive to variations in the input order of heterogeneous knowledge contexts. To address these limitations, we propose ORLF, an LLM-agnostic training framework that models cross-context topological relations through knowledge-specific latent vectors. ORLF integrates context-wise position encoding, a latent-bridge attention mask, and topological knowledge bias to preserve knowledge-specific bias and encode topological semantics. Experiments across four LLM backbones show that ORLF outperforms competitive training-free and LoRA-based baselines, improving average Exact Match and Reasoning-Chain Accuracy by 2.15% and 4.29%, respectively, while reducing order-induced performance standard deviation by 0.04% to 3.01%.

Measuring political bias in large language models (LLMs) remains challenging as it can manifest through subtle differences in framing, argumentation, and legal reasoning that are difficult to capture with a single metric. In this work, we introduce Poli-Bias, a counterfactual framework for measuring whether LLMs treat legally equivalent conflict scenarios differently depending on the countries involved. Poli-Bias compares responses to paired prompts in which country identities are systematically swapped across diverse geopolitical relationships, legal violations, and reasoning tasks. Rather than reducing bias to a single judgment, our framework decomposes response disparities into five interpretable dimensions, revealing how and where unequal treatment manifests. Across 13 contemporary LLMs spanning diverse model families and sizes, we find that country identities and user affiliations can systematically affect how equivalent actions are described, evaluated, and defended under international law. Our results thus establish Poli-Bias as a fine-grained framework for auditing political even-handedness and sycophancy in LLMs.