Counterfactuals

Detecting media bias automatically is difficult because biased framing is often subtle, yet in domains such as news analysis, accurate predictions alone are insufficient without explanations that reflect the model's underlying reasoning. We present a multi-dimensional evaluation of explainability in encoder-based media bias detection using the Bias Annotations By Experts (BABE) dataset. Specifically, we study BERT and RoBERTa as classifiers (base and large variants) along three complementary axes: predictive performance, explanation plausibility (token-level alignment with expert rationales), and mechanistic faithfulness (whether compact sets of attention heads recover predictive signal under counterfactual rationale masking). To induce variation in plausibility, we additionally investigate attention-supervised finetuning, which incorporates expert rationale annotations as an auxiliary training signal. Attention supervision serves as an intervention on attribution plausibility, while the effectiveness of attribution methods varies substantially across architectures. Circuit analysis further reveals substantial variation in mechanistic recoverability across architectures, suggesting that model scale alone does not determine circuit compressibility. Taken together, our findings suggest that predictive performance, attribution plausibility, and mechanistic faithfulness characterize different aspects of model behavior and should be evaluated separately when studying explainability in media bias detection.

In bearing vibration datasets, most samples receive predicted fault probabilities close to 0 or 1, while samples with intermediate (gray-zone) probabilities are rare. Such borderline samples are important because they reflect conditions in which maintenance decisions may require additional inspection or a conservative response and are useful for studying decision boundaries. To address this scarcity, this paper proposes and compares two approaches that generate vibration signals whose predicted fault probability matches a target probability of 0.25, 0.50, or 0.75. We use the average output of a heterogeneous ensemble classifier with different architectures and random initializations as a fixed, gradient-accessible probability oracle. The first, training-based approach, Probability-Regularized Generative Adversarial Network (PR-GAN), extends Wasserstein Generative Adversarial Network with Gradient Penalty (WGAN-GP) and edits a real signal through a residual generator while pushing the classifier output toward the target probability. The second is a training-free, per-sample Wachter-style counterfactual (CF) procedure that directly optimizes each input signal to reach the target probability while remaining close to the source signal. We evaluate both methods on the Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) and Paderborn bearing datasets using mean absolute target-probability error, time-domain total variation, and frequency-domain log power spectral density (log-PSD) differences. Across all settings, CF reaches the target with a mean absolute probability error of 0.005-0.008 and a within-tolerance success rate of 1.000 on retained samples, whereas PR-GAN's mean error is 0.046-0.059 with success rates between 0.501 and 0.680. CF therefore steers the probability more reliably and requires smaller average L1 changes, whereas PR-GAN has a lower reported runtime in most settings.

Machine unlearning is commonly evaluated by matching a retrained oracle on trained probes. In a controlled nonce-fact testbed with a matched retraining reference, we find this criterion can favor methods that retain held-out knowledge: candidates it rates adequate score held-out forget facts $-2.82$ nats below the never-learned level (cluster CI $[-3.16,-2.48]$). We recast unlearning as restoration to the matched reference and audit oracle-free screens and certificate-style criteria across 45 model-seed cells spanning five open architecture families. The reference itself falsifies an absolute retain/round-trip certificate: the injected model, which retains the retain set by construction, fails the fixed retain threshold in 41/45 cells and its own round trip in 31/45, and the reference fully certifies in only 1/45. A base-anchored held-out screen remains strong as a selective necessary test: on a sealed challenge suite it rejects the injected model in 45/45 cells, accepts the reference in 44/45, and partially detects entity-routing suppression (35/45); it is a necessary test with measured sensitivity, not a sufficiency certificate. A damage-relative recalibration anchored to the reference's own operating point certifies a small subset in 15/45 cells; where it does not abstain, its picks lie within retraining noise (0.80 nats) on the axes it optimizes, while the common trained-probe criterion sits 5.17 nats away (a supporting comparison, not a head-to-head benchmark). A fixed-magnitude logit-suppression attack defeats the full forward battery in 12/45 cells, so forward-only certification is not sound; our method is an empirical selective test for methods-as-produced. An identifiability theorem delimits which facts admit an oracle-free forget threshold at all, with TOFU as the predicted boundary case.

This paper proposes ConceptCF, a method for counterfactual generation that operates on human-interpretable concepts. In high-stakes domains such as healthcare and predictive maintenance, artificial intelligence models can increase efficiency and safety. Explainability is key to ensure these models rely on causal relationships rather than spurious correlations. Counterfactual explanations identify minimal modifications that would change a model's predictions. Existing methods for time series operate on individual points or subsequences without ensuring interpretability of the mutations. ConceptCF instead modifies meaningful concepts. As a result we can provide explanations in terms of these concepts, for example ``the model's prediction would be Sit' instead of Walk' if you increase the scale of the movement''. In this paper, the concepts are constructed through time series decomposition, resulting in concepts such as scale, and frequency bands. Counterfactuals are generated using a genetic algorithm that optimizes the concept mutations. Evaluation against five state-of-the-art approaches demonstrates that ConceptCF consistently achieves top-tier performance across validity, confidence, proximity, sparsity and plausibility metrics.

Large language models achieve strong reasoning performance, but often at prohibitive training cost - a challenge that is especially acute for compact models ($\leq 4 \, \mathrm{B}$ parameters) trained under limited budgets. We introduce MADA-RL, a post-training framework that specializes compact models into generator and critic roles and trains them with a debate-aware learning signal, fine-tuning only a small subset of parameters via LoRA adapters. Our central contribution is a counterfactual critic advantage: a dynamic, role-conditioned baseline that redefines the critic's advantage as its reward minus the generator ensemble's per-instance accuracy. This explicitly optimizes critics to improve over generator consensus rather than to merely reproduce a correct answer, yielding more targeted credit assignment than static mean-reward normalization. At deployment, the specialized agents are composed in a lightweight multi-round protocol. Across five mathematical reasoning benchmarks, MADA-RL raises the accuracy of the DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-1.5B model from $39.9 \, \%$ to $41.9 \, \%$ ($+2.0$ points, $p < 0.001$) using $16$ times fewer trainable parameters than fully fine-tuned baselines, placing it on the accuracy-trainable-parameter Pareto front. It approaches, but does not surpass, the strongest baselines (DeepScaleR, STILL-3), which are trained on substantially larger datasets; we analyse this gap and the associated inference-time cost directly. A controlled study isolates the source of MADA-RL's gains: the counterfactual advantage produces the highest critic improvement rate of any model evaluated, indicating that trained critics learn to correct generator errors rather than to imitate them.

We present MagicSelector, a joint optimization framework integrating Counterfactual task decomposition, Progressive reranking, and Dynamic Top-K, designed to address the fundamental challenges of tool retrieval in agents. MagicSelector is a specialized framework capable of translating ambiguous user instructions into executable atomic subtasks and guiding high-precision tool retrieval, effectively mitigating redundant noise and severe context distraction in out-of-domain (OOD) scenarios. We empower MagicSelector with these capabilities through three key contributions: (1) a preference-guided counterfactual task decomposition mechanism that utilizes a counterfactual reward to quantify the marginal causal gain of decomposition on retrieval ranking, effectively imposing fine-grained structural supervision on logical coherence; (2) a progressive tool reranking method driven by self-distillation hard negative mining, which optimizes both point-wise and list-wise relevance to enhance fine-grained discrimination among highly similar tools; and (3) a dual semantic boundary-aware dynamic Top-K strategy that adaptively monitors reranking score cliffs and inter-tool semantic shifts to dynamically truncate the candidate list, maximizing relevant tool recall while filtering long-tail noise. Evaluated on MTDTool, the first task decomposition benchmark we constructed tailored for mobile multi-turn interactions with process-level annotations, MagicSelector yields promising performance. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MagicSelector significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods in terms of tool retrieval accuracy, OOD generalization capability, and overall token efficiency, thereby demonstrating the effectiveness of our proposed framework.

Large language models encode world models implicitly in neural weights, which exposes four structural risks in high-precision domains such as medicine and finance: hallucination, frozen knowledge, poor explainability, and poor modifiability. This paper proposes data-first ontology: LLMs are treated as reasoning and language engines, while deterministic knowledge is moved into an explicit multimodal database, DaoQL. We formalize an explicit world model and show that, under rule independence, deterministic evaluation, and fixed conflict resolution, explicit models provide a sufficient condition for composable counterfactual decomposability; implicit models lack atomic read/delta semantics and therefore provide no comparable architectural guarantee. The implemented system focuses on DaoQL's verified storage layer and explicit Eval path, integrating graph, column, vector, and full-text engines within one process. KVCache graph nodes, expert hot updates, and the DaoQL-Agent runtime remain future work. On an embedded same-machine setup, DaoQL reports graph BFS at 1.20 ms, HNSW at 83.1 us, and a Fluent hybrid query at 105.8 us; these results indicate engineering potential but must be interpreted with deployment-shape differences from client-server systems. Exploratory measurements on LDBC SNB SF1 and ANN-Benchmarks further show 34/34 query coverage with interactive-class queries mostly in the sub-millisecond to millisecond range, but only 1.8 QPS overall due to long-tail BI/IC queries; ANN-Benchmarks reaches Recall@10 >= 99% at thousand-level QPS after a bridge-edge protection fix. In a five-domain counterfactual experiment (n = 1250), DaoQL+GPT-4o achieves 94% composable counterfactual decomposability, 49 percentage points above GPT-4o alone. The paper explicitly separates provable structure, preliminary empirical evidence, and architectural roadmap claims.

The Credit Assignment Problem (CAP) is fundamental to developing efficient and explainable Reinforcement Learning (RL) agents. Existing frameworks, whether relying on temporal contiguity or hindsight-conditioned reward reweighting, frequently fail to attribute properly between an agent's policy (skill) and environmental stochasticity (luck). A principled approach to CAP must isolate the true causal drivers of observed outcomes from spurious correlations and environmental randomness. We introduce Counterfactual Shapley Credit Assignment, a novel framework grounded in causal theory that attributes credit and blame via the Counterfactual Shapley Value ($φ$-value). By redistributing environmental rewards, $φ$-values enhance temporal credit assignment across three critical dimensions: sparse causality, high stochasticity, and delayed rewards, all while preserving the optimal policy. We derive a consistent estimator that computes $φ$-values efficiently, enabling a new class of policy gradient methods, $φ$-PPO, combined with Prioritized Trajectory Replay (PTR). Empirical results demonstrate that $φ$-values align precisely to the ground truth causes of task rewards with superior sample efficiency in challenging environments where prior state-of-the-art methods fail to converge.

Predictive maintenance relies on accurate Remaining Useful Life estimation, often formulated using survival analysis over multivariate time-series data. While modern deep survival models achieve strong predictive performance, their black-box nature limits their use in safety-critical settings where actionable insight is required. In this work, we introduce \textit{SurvCF(t)}, the first framework for generating counterfactual explanations for survival models operating on time-series data. \textit{SurvCF(t)} identifies minimal, plausible, and temporally consistent changes to an asset's operational history that increase its predicted life time, framing explanation as a constrained optimization problem combining validity, proximity, sparsity, and plausibility. We evaluate the method on multiple benchmarks, including C-MAPSS, N-CMAPSS, and a real-world case study of the Scania Component_X dataset, demonstrating its ability to produce actionable and interpretable interventions. Our results show that \textit{SurvCF(t)} bridges the gap between survival prediction and prescriptive maintenance, enabling explainable and decision-oriented AI for maintenance strategies.

End-to-end autonomous driving models are now able to navigate complex road scenarios, mapping raw sensor observations directly to observed paths for open-loop evaluation and often effective driving in closed-loop evaluation. Yet the internal logic of these safety-critical systems remains largely opaque, due to the complexity of traffic scenes. We propose a counterfactual ablation framework called Counterfactual Vision Action Analysis (CVAA) that systematically removes individual detected objects from front-camera images using photorealistic generative inpainting to prepare counterfactual sets to evaluate the difference in the model's response. This isolates the causal effect of each object's presence on the model's planning behaviour. Applied to the Alpamayo 1 trajectory predictor across 210 nuScenes driving scenes, we create a dataset Counter -nuScenes, using which we see that vehicles and pedestrians within the model's 'path' dominate causal influence as expected, while traffic lights, as expected, exert disproportionate effect relative to their image footprint. However, we also find cases where the model responds strongly to objects a human driver would consider irrelevant. This brings forth a deeper question: does the model itself view the scene as a sum of individual objects influencing the outcome, or does it encode an entirely different set of internal features that do not correspond to human-legible scene elements? To further understand this, we compare intermediate representations of original and inpainted image pairs using mechanistic interpretability techniques and examine the effect of the removal through the various model layers. Together, these two stages offer a path from behavioral auditing to representational understanding, creating explainable driving systems and solidifying human-AI trust.

Some limits on what language models know are not gaps in data coverage but structural properties of learning from text. We introduce the information shadow: the region of phenomena that a text-trained learner cannot acquire regardless of scale, comprising (I) structures language cannot express, (II) functions that are statistically non-identifiable from the training distribution, and (III) functions that are representable but unreachable by gradient-based training. We give each type a probe that is decisive because the premise of the shadow is, in that setting, provable. For Type I, Language Compression Residuals compare a text learner, which sees only a lossy text-like encoding of the signal, against a full-signal learner, which sees the underlying signal directly. The text learner sits at a computable expressibility ceiling while the full-signal learner pulls away by a gap that stays flat across 300x more data, so the deficit is a property of the channel, not of training. For Type II, the Counterfactual Distinction Test trains models on data exactly consistent with two incompatible rules. Across a provable string task and a language-like agreement task, behavior on counterfactuals is set by the model's inductive bias, while 5% disambiguating data steers the learned rule bidirectionally to either target (r = +/-1.0, p < 1e-10). For Type III, Basin Escape Mapping exhibits a function that is representable at 100% (by hand construction) yet reached 0% of the time by standard training and instantly from a nearby initialization, with width scaling providing no help (p = 1.6 x 10^-14). Each effect is isolated by a control that rules out a capacity or modality artifact. We release the probe suite and discuss implications for benchmark design, capability auditing, and shadow-aware uncertainty.

Rare concept generation focuses on synthesizing customized images conditioned on text prompts that describe objects with unusual attributes. Previous works failed to align the generated images with rare concepts, resulting in incorrect attribute rendering or inconsistent composition of concepts. Such failures, as we observed, stem from the inherent common knowledge bias in the training stage of diffusion models, where objects are strongly associated with their common attributes, making it difficult to break these associations when generating rare concepts. To address such challenges, in this paper, we propose a novel Counterfactual Inference-based Diffusion approach, dubbed CI-Diff. CI-Diff blocks the interference of the model's inherent common knowledge bias and utilizes the Natural Direct Effect to capture the independent influence of the text prompt of rare concepts on image generation so that decoupling the unusual attributes from the rare concepts. To this end, we reformulate the classifier-free guidance mechanism to highlight the atypical attributes. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to introduce causal inference into the rare concept generation task. Extensive experiments on the RareBench benchmark validate the superiority of CI-Diff over state-of-the-art diffusion models. Our code can be accessed from https://github.com/200204jzy/CI-Diff.

Counterfactual explanations provide local, interpretable insight by identifying changes to an input that would alter its assigned outcome. Although well established in supervised learning, their extension to clustering is less direct, since cluster assignments are unlabeled and governed by the geometry of the partition. This paper introduces VoICE, a Voronoi-Induced Counterfactual Explainability framework for feature-weighted $k$-means clustering. Rather than treating cluster change as a crossing of a single pairwise centroid boundary, VoICE formulates counterfactual generation as projection onto the full weighted Voronoi region of a target cluster, incorporating feature weights directly into both the clustering geometry and the counterfactual objective to yield least-cost and parsimonious explanations under actionability constraints. Target regions are further intersected with data-derived bounds and homothetically contracted towards their centroids, limiting extrapolation and boundary sensitivity. VoICE consistently produces valid target-cluster membership, across several benchmark datasets, where the leading pairwise baseline does not.

Ad-load design is a central supply-side decision in sponsored search: more sponsored slots can raise revenue, but may crowd out organic results and degrade user outcomes. We study this trade-off using a large-scale randomized field experiment on an Android app store, where over five million users are exposed to one through six sponsored slots. Increasing ad load raises revenue by up to 43%, but reduces total search conversions by up to 5% and daily engagement by up to 2.2%. These average effects mask substantial heterogeneity: additional slots generate large revenue gains for high-ad-conversion queries, but little or negative marginal revenue for low-conversion queries. The trade-off also shifts within query as advertiser composition changes, such as brand-advertiser presence. Motivated by these findings, we design and deploy a novel adaptive algorithm -- exploration-augmented Locally Adaptive Ad Load (e-LAAL). e-LAAL combines LAAL, a model-free query-level decision rule that updates ad-load recommendations using recent outcomes, with static exploration arms that maintain support and provide fixed-policy counterfactual benchmarks. We provide a finite-time dynamic-regret guarantee for the e-LAAL architecture. In a platform-level production deployment serving 22.3 million users and 77.6 million searches, e-LAAL improves the empirical revenue--conversion trade-off relative to deployed static benchmarks and outperforms uniform and historical query-dependent static benchmarks.

The interconnected nature of global financial systems makes them vulnerable to systemic risks, where the failure of a few institutions can trigger catastrophic cascading defaults. Traditional risk models often fail to capture the complex, non-linear dynamics of these networks. While Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have shown promise in modeling relational data, they primarily learn correlative patterns and function as black boxes, offering little insight into the causal mechanisms of shock propagation. This limitation is critical for regulators who require explainable models to perform stress tests and devise effective interventions. We introduce CausalGraphX, a novel framework that integrates GNNs with counterfactual reasoning to provide explainable assessments of systemic risk. CausalGraphX employs a Graph Attention mechanism to learn representations of institutional vulnerability and uses an adversarial regularization technique to ensure these representations capture causal drivers rather than spurious correlations. Furthermore, we propose an optimization-based approach to generate counterfactual explanations, answering questions such as, "What minimum capital injection would have prevented Bank A's default under a specific stress scenario?" We validate CausalGraphX on large-scale synthetic financial networks. Our results demonstrate that CausalGraphX significantly outperforms traditional and deep learning baselines in predicting cascading defaults while providing sparse, plausible, and actionable counterfactual explanations.

Large language models achieve strong scores on medical benchmarks, yet these benchmarks evaluate each question in isolation, providing no measure of whether a system can distinguish clinically similar presentations requiring different interventions. We introduce MamaBench, the first counterfactual benchmark for maternal and paediatric AI: 434 expert-authored clinical narratives in 217 pairs across 371 pathologies, evaluated via the Bias Trap Rate (BTR), the conditional probability that a model fails the counterfactual given success on the base case. We propose Evidence-Anchored RAG (EA-RAG), a three-stage retrieval method that replaces aggregate similarity with an evidence coverage objective through clinical parameter extraction, coverage auditing, and contrastive sub-queries. Across eight configurations of four frontier LLMs, base accuracy overstates robust accuracy by 16-28 percentage points in every model. EA-RAG achieves 20.3% BTR and 65.0% robust accuracy on Claude Sonnet 4.6, a 5.5 percentage point BTR reduction without degrading base accuracy. The residual 20% BTR confirms that counterfactual robustness in clinical AI remains an open challenge. Keywords: counterfactual evaluation, clinical AI, maternal healthcare, retrieval-augmented generation, diagnostic robustness

We introduce COAT (Counterfactual Optimal Action Tree), a framework for learning interpretable prescriptive policies from observational data. COAT combines counterfactual outcome estimation with large-scale mixed-integer optimization, using column generation to translate causal predictions into feasible, transparent decisions under business and regulatory constraints. We apply COAT to airline ancillary pricing, a setting characterized by complex business rules and limited experimental flexibility. In a 17-week field pilot with a major global airline, COAT increased upsell revenue per booking by 6.9%, with the airline projecting $50-$150 million in incremental annual premium seat revenue across eligible domestic markets. The success of the pilot led to scaled adoption and informed broader AI-driven decision initiatives within the organization.

Aspect-Based Sentiment Analysis (ABSA) requires models to identify sentiment toward specific aspects rather than relying on the global polarity of a sentence. This makes counterfactual evaluation especially challenging: a valid counterfactual should flip the sentiment of one target aspect while preserving the sentiment of all non-target aspects, semantic meaning, fluency, and factual consistency. Existing counterfactual generation methods often focus on sentence-level label flipping and may produce edits that are fluent but aspect-invalid, semantically drifting, or contradictory. To address this limitation, we propose CAVE-ABSA, a Constraint-Aware Validated Editing framework for generating and validating aspect-level counterfactuals. CAVE-ABSA localizes the opinion span associated with the target aspect, performs controlled counterfactual rewriting, refines candidates through a repair module, and filters them using aspect-level verification, semantic similarity, AMR-guided structural preservation, edit minimality, fluency, and contradiction detection. The framework is designed to construct validated counterfactual ABSA datasets for robustness evaluation and data augmentation. By explicitly separating generation from validation, CAVE-ABSA provides a principled approach for producing meaningful aspect-local counterfactuals and for testing whether ABSA models truly rely on aspect-grounded sentiment reasoning.

Quantifying directional influence between node populations is a fundamental problem in graph-based modeling, particularly in spatial biological systems where cell-cell interactions shape functional outcomes. Existing approaches based on attention, attribution, or correlation capture associations but do not provide a principled framework for evaluating directional effects under controlled perturbations. We introduce a framework for structured counterfactual interventions in graph-based models to estimate directional influence between node types. Our approach trains a Neighbor Influence Model (NIM) to predict node states from local neighborhoods and applies constrained interventions that modify neighborhood composition while preserving key spatial and structural properties. We define the Counterfactual Directionality Score (CDS), which measures the change in predicted node state induced by targeted perturbations, and provide a theoretical interpretation of CDS as a finite-difference measure of local intervention sensitivity. To obtain valid uncertainty estimates, we introduce a core-level bootstrap procedure that accounts for dependencies within spatial samples. Experiments on synthetic spatial graphs with known directional structure show that CDS recovers directional influence, remains well calibrated under null conditions, and is robust to confounding signals, while preliminary results on spatial transcriptomics data reveal biologically plausible and consistent interactions across tissue cores.

Aligned language models routinely misreport under non-evidential incentive pressure: they agree with a confident user or overstate certainty even when their internal belief is unchanged. We cast this as a failure of internal incentive-compatibility (IC) and present a method for learning and certifying counterfactual report mediators that hold a model's reports to a causal contract: invariant to forbidden influences (pressure, prestige, restyling) and responsive to licensed ones (genuine evidence). These two demands, resist and update, pull in opposite directions. We study them on a Bayesian-witness benchmark with known posteriors, in which the same user disagreement is licensed evidence or forbidden pressure purely by stated source reliability. We (i) causally identify, by interchange interventions rather than probe accuracy, low-rank report coordinates for answer, confidence, and caveat that are near-orthogonal and independently controllable, and (ii) introduce a training-free counterfactual report-coordinate (CRC) clamp that references the model's own report under a counterfactually incentive-neutralized context. On the witness benchmark the two-pass clamp attains resist and update of 1.00 jointly (Wilson 95% CI [0.99,1.00]), a causal certificate under a constructible reference, not a deployed solution. Global decoding and steering show a single-parameter tradeoff; output-level fine-tuning matches both objectives only when both are enumerated; resist-only training loses evidence-responsiveness. The deployable single-pass compilation is lossy (0.73/0.97). The mechanism and clamp reproduce across three model families and transfer to a natural sycophancy benchmark (SycophancyEval). Our contribution is the interface and certification method: activation-level counterfactual incentive-invariance as a structural primitive for internal IC.

An LLM agent's public behaviour reveals little about its social reasoning: an agent that votes correctly may be guessing, and an agent that lies well leaves no trace of what it actually believes. We present MafiaScope, an open testbed that turns the social deduction game Mafia into a measurement instrument for machine Theory of Mind. After every public utterance, every agent privately answers a configurable set of structured probe questions; the answers never re-enter the game and are scored automatically against the ground truth the engine knows. An interactive visualizer renders the belief trajectories: impersonate mode shows the game as one agent sees it, panels chart timeline-aligned accuracy and calibration, and counterfactual replay forks any recorded step. In a 32-game DeepSeek case study with 13{,}815 parsed probe answers, stated confidence is poorly calibrated, with expected calibration error 0.17, agents over-predict being suspected 1.5 times, and a 30-fork replay experiment walks the counterfactual replay workflow end to end. Engine, viewer and a corpus of 200+ cross-model games are released under an open licence; live demo: https://karpovilia.github.io/mafiascope/; screencast: https://vimeo.com/1208920221.

Evaluating the multi-hop reasoning capabilities of large language models remains a significant challenge. Although current models achieve strong results on existing multi-hop question answering datasets, such performance often masks two critical vulnerabilities: (1) reliance on internal parametric knowledge rather than adherence to the provided context, and (2) exploitation of dataset shortcuts, such as single-document cues or type-matching, that diminish the need for genuine evidence aggregation across multiple documents. We introduce CRiT-QA (Counterfactual Reasoning with Traps), a dataset explicitly designed to address both limitations. To neutralize reliance on memorized knowledge and enforce strict context dependency, CRiT-QA transforms factual reasoning chains with counterfactual entities. Furthermore, it injects multi-anchor distractor chains, plausible but incorrect reasoning paths that diverge at different hops. These traps require models to follow the entire reasoning process rather than exploiting shallow heuristics. Our experiments show that LLMs exhibit substantial performance degradation on CRiT-QA compared to standard datasets, exposing their vulnerability to counterfactual conditions and distractor traps. CRiT-QA thus serves as a rigorous diagnostic tool for evaluating genuine multi-hop reasoning and provides a foundation for developing more reliable, evidence-grounded LLMs.

Long-horizon failure in world models is conventionally attributed to compounding error, a generic framing that does not distinguish what kind of error compounds. We propose a kinematic-vs-dynamic reframing: world models tend to imagine kinematically rather than dynamically. We operationalize this as the imagined Kinematic-Consistency Error, a per-step diagnostic that measures how far a rollout departs from a closed-form kinematic null, paired with a perturbation protocol that tests whether iKCE responds when physical conditions cross a regime boundary. We instantiate the diagnostic on a released DreamerV3 checkpoint trained on DMC walker-walk, where imagined iKCE runs roughly two orders of magnitude above that of matched real-physics rollouts. Across a friction sweep that crosses the gait-collapse boundary, the model's iKCE stays statistically flat even as the trained policy's reward collapses through the same range, providing the kinematic-not-dynamic signature. The diagnostic distinguishes kinematic from dynamic imagination at horizons longer than the embodiment's gait period.

Search-augmented language models can use external evidence to compensate for limitations in parametric knowledge, but search is not uniformly beneficial: models may call search for questions they can already answer, or rely on noisy evidence when correction, clarification, or abstention would be more appropriate. We formulate this as an instance-level search-routing problem: deciding whether search is needed to improve task success relative to a no-search execution. To derive supervision, we compare no-search and forced-search outcomes for the same question and construct an oracle over NO SEARCH, SEARCH, and UNSOLVED based on task-specific success. Using this oracle as both an evaluation criterion and a learning signal, we train search-routing policies with supervised fine-tuning and preference optimization, improving routing macro-F1 on oracle-eligible examples from 0.7082 to 0.8235 for Gemma E2B and from 0.7053 to 0.8365 for Qwen3.5-4B. Further analysis shows that the learned policies reduce model-specific routing failures: Gemma primarily learns no-search restraint, while Qwen further reduces missed search; residual UNSOLVED cases reveal heterogeneous bottlenecks involving model capacity, retrieval budget, evidence use, and policy behavior.

The notion of algorithmic fairness has been actively explored from various aspects of fairness, such as counterfactual fairness (CF) and group fairness (GF). However, the exact relationship between CF and GF remains to be unclear, especially in image classification tasks; the reason is because we often cannot collect counterfactual samples regarding a sensitive attribute, essential for evaluating CF, from the existing images (\eg, a photo of the same person but with different secondary sex characteristics). In this paper, we construct new image datasets for evaluating CF by using a high-quality image editing method and carefully labeling with human annotators. Our datasets, \oursceleb and \ourslfw, build upon the popular image GF benchmarks; hence, we can evaluate CF and GF simultaneously. We empirically observe that CF does not imply GF in image classification, whereas previous studies on tabular datasets observed the opposite. We theoretically show that it could be due to the existence of a latent attribute $G$ that is correlated with, but not caused by, the sensitive attribute (\eg, secondary sex characteristics are highly correlated with hair length). From this observation, we propose a simple baseline, Counterfactual Knowledge Distillation (CKD), to mitigate such correlation with the sensitive attributes. Extensive experimental results on \oursceleb and \ourslfw demonstrate that CF-achieving models satisfy GF if we successfully reduce the reliance on $G$ (\eg, using CKD).

In many decision-making settings, new interventions are acceptable only if they do not reduce outcomes below some established threshold. For example, in clinical medicine, new treatments are often acceptable only if they do not worsen outcomes relative to an established standard of care. Safe Bayesian optimization maximizes an objective subject to safety constraints. In the setting that we consider here, safety is defined relative to a known baseline policy whose outcomes are counterfactual and therefore unobserved. Thus, the counterfactual outcomes of the baseline policy must be estimated and those (uncertain) estimates must be used to safely optimize the objective. We address this estimation problem by using conformal prediction to construct valid uncertainty intervals for counterfactual baseline outcomes, and we show how these intervals can be integrated into safe Bayesian optimization to ensure that constraint violations occur at or below a user-specified rate. We also show how to adapt these conformal estimates to different kinds of covariate shift. We provide a safety proof, experimental evidence, and a sensitivity analysis.

The application of machine learning-based predictive algorithms to Anti-Money Laundering (AML) has grown rapidly, driven by the vast volume of financial transaction data available to banks. These algorithms are typically trained not only on transactional data but also on sensitive client information, which may raise fairness concerns. Despite this, AML detection systems remain largely underexplored from a fairness perspective, even though deeper analytical methods based on counterfactuals are now available. Such techniques enable the decomposition of the direct and indirect effects of potentially sensitive features on model predictions, thereby supporting the evaluation of whether their influence is acceptable from a fairness perspective. Closing this gap, we consider the synthetic IBM AMLSim transaction dataset and construct additional features of the country of an account and its average behaviour. This improves the predictive performance of diverse machine learning models, ranging from baseline decision trees to state-of-the-art graph neural networks. We assess the potential unfairness associated with these features through a counterfactual, path-specific effect analysis. This reveals that fairness violations tend to be more pronounced for models whose predictive performance benefits the most from the extended features. Such a finding highlights a concrete instance of the trade-off between predictive accuracy and fairness in AML applications, thus underscoring the urgency of a systematic fairness analysis in such critical domains.

Language models can reach the right normative verdict for the wrong reason. We introduce NormWorlds-CF, a solver-verified environment for counterfactual normative reasoning in executable rule worlds. Its deterministic solver produces final answers, proof and falsification certificates, argument statuses, support sets, and paired-world change labels, enabling supervision and evaluation without LLM judges. The benchmark contains staged SFT diagnostics and a compact paired-world task with 270 root families and 1080 canonical-to-variant pairs. The SFT diagnostics show that final-answer supervision is an unsafe proxy: answer-only SFT reaches perfect accuracy on answer tasks but scores zero on falsification, while proof-plus-falsification training with targeted replay reaches strong all-task accuracy. For the structured-change task, we introduce metamorphic-relation GRPO (MR-GRPO), a class-conditioned reward for GRPO that gives partial credit for relation families and solver-visible change fields. In matched 1.7B continuation experiments, MR-GRPO improves held-out relation accuracy and relation-family correctness, and reduces wrong-family error, compared to sparse and answer-only GRPO. In Qwen3-4B three-seed validation, answer-only reward improves answer-change fields but weakens relation-family structure, sparse reward preserves coarse relation labels best, and MR-GRPO delivers the strongest balanced performance across answer-change, support-change, status-change, and soft root-level metamorphic-relation metrics. These results show that verified counterfactual structure can shape post-training beyond final answers, while exact full change-record generation, invariant subtype recognition, and out-of-distribution (OOD) transfer remain open problems.

Large vision language models (VLMs) report strong accuracy on medical question-answering, yet it remains unclear whether they reason from visual evidence or exploit textual shortcuts. We introduce a counterfactual evaluation framework that decouples visual and textual contributions by substituting input images with controlled surrogates blank, pixel-shuffled, image-absent, and CLIP-retrieved hard negatives and derive a suite of grounding metrics including the Visual Reliance Score (VRS) and Visual Hallucination Rate (VHR). We further introduce CORAL (COntrastive Retrieval-Augmented Learning), a 7B-parameter LoRA fine-tune of Qwen2.5-VL-7B trained with a Contrastive Grounding Objective (CGO) that penalises answer invariance under hard-negative image swaps. On a paired controlled evaluation across four closed-form medical VQA benchmarks (PathVQA, PMC-VQA, SLAKE, VQA-RAD; n=400 total), CORAL improves macro accuracy by +6.7 pp (P(Delta>0)=0.988) and reduces VHR by 8.0 pp (P<0.001) over the matched Qwen2.5-VL-7B base; neither MedVLThinker RL variant achieves a significant gain on either metric. Cross-domain diagnostics further reveal that image substitution costs only <=6.5 pp on medical benchmarks versus 48-61 pp on general-domain tasks, situating the grounding gap that CGO targets. We discuss evaluation limitations openly including train/eval benchmark overlap and underpowered secondary metrics and release our framework, training code, and model weights to support reproducible grounding audits of medical VLMs.

Algorithmic recourse addresses the challenge of providing tailored recommendations to users affected by unfavorable machine learning decisions, in potentially high-stakes scenarios. Traditional approaches to recourse often rely on the closest counterfactual explanations or assume a priori knowledge of a user's causal structure, resulting in interventions that overlook individual contexts and specific feature interactions. To overcome these limitations, we study a human-in-the-loop framework that iteratively approximates the user's structural causal model through interactive queries via Bayesian inference before producing recourse recommendations. This framework exploits humans' feedback to improve the identification of causal effects, allowing personalized recourse that is plausible, cost-effective, and aligned with the actual causal dependencies of each user. As a proof of concept, we evaluate this framework through simulated human responses. Our simulations across linear and non-linear causal models show promising results, though challenges remain in capturing complex, non-linear structures, emphasizing the importance of accurate approximations and robust noise distribution modeling.

Predictions are increasingly used to guide high-stakes decisions, from treatment selection to policy making. To ensure reliability with imperfect predictions, uncertainty quantification methods such as conformal prediction build prediction sets with coverage guarantees. However, statistical validity alone does not immediately determine the decisions to take, nor the optimality thereof. This gap is especially delicate in counterfactual settings where the outcome that materializes depends on the action taken, so uncertainty cannot be specified independently of the decision rule. We develop a decision-theoretic framework for uncertainty-informed counterfactual decisions. We identify a novel notion of \emph{policy-coupled coverage} -- namely, coverage of the realized outcome under the action induced by the prediction sets themselves -- as the optimal and lossless interface between uncertainty and action. It plays three roles. First, it justifies acting via a natural max-min rule as minimax-optimal under distributional ambiguity. Second, optimizing prediction sets under policy-coupled coverage is equivalent both to a stronger universal-coverage formulation and to the direct risk-averse optimization over policies and utility certificates; this equivalence yields the explicit form of the population-optimal prediction sets. Third, it admits a two-stage procedure, Policy-Coupled Risk-Averse Conformal Prediction (PC-RACP), that approximates these optimal sets with rigorous finite-sample coverage. Simulations and a real email-marketing experiment confirm that PC-RACP delivers higher utility than existing approaches while maintaining valid coverage, and that ignoring the counterfactual structure of the decision problem is suboptimal for both validity and utility.

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) for multivariate time-series classifiers are often difficult to interpret in domains where experts reason in terms of semantic feature groups rather than individual channels. In rehabilitation movement analysis with multi-sensor inertial measurement units (IMUs), clinicians interpret motion through muscle-group and joint-segment abstractions; yet, most existing counterfactual methods operate at the channel level, producing scattered and biomechanically incoherent explanations. We propose a two-stage framework for group-based counterfactual generation in high-dimensional IMU data. We first show that Shapley-Adaptive (SA) group ranking preserves counterfactual validity but fails to enforce group-level sparsity, motivating the need for explicit group selection. We then introduce Learnable Gate (LG) methods, which incorporate trainable per-group relevance gates jointly optimized with perturbation masks. Experiments on the KneE-PAD rehabilitation dataset demonstrate that LG substantially improves modality-group sparsity compared to the channel-level M-CELS baseline while maintaining or improving validity, temporal smoothness, and generation efficiency. Exercise-specific analyses further show that group-structured counterfactuals yield concise, muscle-level corrective guidance aligned with clinical reasoning. Overall, the proposed framework enhances interpretability without sacrificing counterfactual quality, enabling more actionable explanations for rehabilitation movement analysis.

Counterfactual explanation (CE) is widely used to enhance the interpretability of machine learning models and support data-driven decision-making based on model predictions. However, existing CE methods typically require two exogenously specified inputs: a desired output value (target) and a distance function that quantifies changes in explanatory variables. In regression settings, neither the validity of target specification nor the practical interpretation of the distance metric has been sufficiently addressed. Furthermore, most existing CE methods focus on altering predictions rather than optimizing a decision objective, even though real-world decision-making often requires explicit objective maximization. To address these limitations, we formulate CE as a profit maximization problem in management and marketing contexts and propose a framework termed profit-based counterfactual explanation (PBCE). PBCE eliminates the need for exogenous target specification by directly maximizing profit as the primary optimization objective. Concurrently, the distance term is reinterpreted as the cost of modifying product attributes, providing a clear and economically grounded interpretation.

Current large-language-model (LLM) physics benchmarks are usually scored by answer accuracy, which cannot distinguish genuine reasoning from recall of familiar problem patterns and reveals little about where a model's reasoning breaks down. We introduce an auditable four-stage diagnostic that evaluates whether an LLM can reason inside an unfamiliar physics framework through induction, formulation, prediction, and review. The diagnostic combines locked pre-registrations, fresh sessions between stages, dual-LLM judging, and a human-audit pathway, and we apply it to three parallel physics worlds: a single-equation counterfactual world ($F=mv$), a historical framework (Aristotelian mechanics), and a four-domain counterfactual world (Decay World). Across Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5, and Gemini 3.1 Pro, the three worlds yield composite PASS rates are 6/15, 6/15, and 0/15 respectively (content $\land$ structural for $F=mv$ and Aristotelian, content axis only for Decay World where the structural axis is out of scope). The most pointed empirical pattern is a qualitative-versus-quantitative asymmetry: in Decay World, models almost never predict the wrong direction of change, but frequently compute the wrong ratio by slipping back to standard-physics relations. The protocol also surfaces two methodology findings: LLM-judge reliability does not transfer across frameworks, and Stage 4 self-review is weak in every framework, with the model's own review wrongly reporting no earlier error in at least two-thirds of the trials that actually contained one. We release the full prompts, responses, verdicts, and audit records.

Recent advances in reinforcement learning have produced superhuman agents across a wide range of competitive games. As a byproduct, researchers have begun studying how these agents play, extracting behavioral representations, analyzing decision structure, and modeling the latent geometry of expert performance. However, this growing body of work has overwhelmingly focused on defeating human players rather than providing feedback, leaving a critical gap in creating model solutions to improve human players. Unlike chess and Go, where AI has become integral to player training, real-time strategy (RTS) games lack principled frameworks for translating expert knowledge into actionable feedback. We introduce Latent Maps of Performance, a framework for counterfactual path generation. We focus on StarCraft~II data to model player improvement as an algorithmic recourse within a learned representation space. As inspiration for our work, we have looked at the championship model used in sports science. We trained a Guided Variational Autoencoder model on 23,305 professional tournament replays, enabling counterfactual traversal between losing and winning gameplay profiles. To fulfill our goal, we have devised and verified four traversal strategies on out-of-distribution (OOD) data randomly sampled from a dataset of amateur replays, namely linear interpolation, iterative optimal transport, density-regularized gradient ascent, and neural flow matching, each designed to generate multi-step improvement trajectories that remain grounded in observed expert behavior while moving a player's profile toward winning configurations. Feedback is extracted at multiple granularities to support players at different stages of improvement. Finally, we conclude that there is a trade-off between the path-finding methods we employ and hope that future research will focus on developing model solutions for human improvement.

When does training language models (LMs) to generate explanations of their predictions yield faithful introspection, rather than superficial imitation? We study LMs trained to explain which features of their inputs influenced their behavior, using models' counterfactual behavior on modified inputs as supervision. Surprisingly, we find that LMs trained on fixed counterfactual explanations derived from earlier checkpoints of themselves, or even from behaviorally similar models in different families, frequently produce explanations more faithful to their own current behaviors than to those of their training targets. This "introspective" coupling between LM explanations and behaviors occurs when training explanations remain sufficiently correlated with current behaviors over the course of training, even as behaviors themselves shift. We also show that introspective coupling tracks behavior shifts: when explanation training is provided concurrently with other post-training objectives, explanations track those shifts without requiring updated supervision. This phenomenon appears in multiple tasks, including sycophancy and refusal, and is robust to label noise. Overall, our results show that even fixed datasets of counterfactual explanations can provide scalable and generalizable post-training signal for introspection.

Counterfactual explanation in abstract argumentation calls for an answer to the what-if query: would the topic argument still be accepted if the status of certain other arguments were changed? Existing approaches are limited to the but-for test and fail to accommodate more refined counterfactual conditions. To overcome these limitations, we introduce an intervention-based counterfactual reasoning framework in abstract argumentation. Our approach encodes the acceptance conditions of arguments as equations, then defines an intervention operator that supports (1) changing sets of arguments simultaneously, and (2) fixing witness arguments to their actual labels. Guided by the refined counterfactual condition introduced in the Halpern-Pearl definition, our method goes beyond the but-for test, thereby correctly identifying causes in argumentation structures such as Preemption and Overdetermination. Through comparison, we show that our method surpasses prior methods in both expressiveness and reliability.

Deep Metric Learning (DML) often struggles with zero-shot generalization because standard objectives inherently capture what co-occurs rather than what causes similarity. Consequently, DML models are vulnerable to shortcut learning driven by two structurally distinct confounders: background spurious correlations (which create backdoor paths via scene context) and foreground nuisance perturbations (which inject non-semantic variations like pose or illumination). Although existing methods have proposed targeted solutions for each pathway individually, none can simultaneously address both due to their fundamentally distinct causal roles. To bridge this gap, we propose the Counterfactual Causal Embedding (CouCE), a unified causal framework that explicitly models and neutralizes both confounders. Specifically, we introduce Orthogonal Dictionary-Based Backdoor Adjustment (ODBA), which isolates spurious background patterns into a variance-gated dictionary and stably disentangles them from the learned embeddings via soft orthogonal regularization. Simultaneously, we propose Multi-Scale Randomized Causal Intervention (MSRCI) to enforce causal invariance against foreground nuisances through multi-scale Fourier amplitude randomization and a symmetric KL invariance constraint. Notably, CouCE seamlessly integrates with any proxy-based loss, incurring modest training overhead without requiring architectural modifications during inference. Extensive experiments on CUB-200-2011, Cars-196, and Stanford Online Products demonstrate that CouCE consistently achieves state-of-the-art performance, providing a principled and robust solution for debiased DML.

Decision theory provides a formal framework for how agents should make choices under uncertainty, drawing on ideas from philosophy, probability, and causality. Despite significant progress, the field still lacks a unified modeling language, and key concepts - such as the distinction between subjective and objective elements, or what it means for a decision theory to perform well - are often left implicit. This can make it difficult to evaluate and compare competing theories, particularly in controversial cases. In this paper, we address these issues by introducing a formal framework for decision theory based on nonparametric structural equation models (NPSEMs), a well-established tool in causal inference. NPSEMs provide a unified foundation for representing agents, counterfactuals, and causal relationships, allowing for unambiguous definitions of EDT and CDT. Building on this foundation, we propose a novel decision theory - personal decision theory - which instructs agents to maximize a subjective model of their own counterfactual utility. We introduce a formal performance metric based on hypothetical interventions that enforce a given decision theory across a population - such as might be achieved through education or policy -- and show that, under certain assumptions, personal decision theory is optimal with respect to this metric. Throughout, we use the smoking lesion problem as a running example and conclude with a formal analysis of Newcomb's problem. Our aim is to provide decision theory with a clearer modeling language and firmer evaluative ground, thereby enabling more rigorous comparisons and facilitating conceptual progress in the field.

Large vision-language models (LVLMs) are increasingly used for clinical image understanding, yet they remain vulnerable to \emph{hallucinations}--producing textual findings or attributes not supported by the image. We present a vision-traceable hallucination detection framework that audits arbitrary LVLM responses via visual evidence grounding, requiring neither modification nor internal access to the hidden states of LVLMs. Given an LVLM response, we extract visually verifiable entities and use a medical-domain-adapted Qwen-VL grounding verifier to localize each entity on the input image. To enhance the robustness of our detection method, we introduce a counterfactual entity perturbation method and estimate visual evidence uncertainty by contrasting factual and counterfactual grounding results. Specifically, we compute an entity-level uncertainty score from the positive confidence, counterfactual confidence, and their grounding overlap for binary hallucination decision-making. Experiments on multiple medical imaging modalities and LVLM backbones demonstrate that our method consistently improves hallucination detection performance over recent baselines, while providing interpretable localization evidence and strong cross-model transferability. Code and dataset are available at https://github.com/Agentic-CliniAI/CounterVHD.

Counterfactual explanations (CFs) help understand machine learning models by identifying minimal input changes that would lead to alternative model outcomes. Recent work demonstrates their utility for reconstructing black-box models, enabling third-party auditing of opaque decision systems for fairness and accountability. Still, CF-based reconstruction may suffer from decision boundary shifts, overfitting, and restrictive assumptions requiring online query access to target platforms. We propose REconstruction via Counterfactual-Aware waSserstein opTimization (RECAST) under limited data and restricted access, a behavioral surrogate model based on Wasserstein barycentric prototypes. Our approach addresses decision boundary shifts by incorporating CFs as informative, though less representative, samples for both classes, maintaining high surrogate fidelity in low-sample regimes without requiring online access during reconstruction. To enhance fairness auditing, our method enables systematic group fairness diagnostics. Experiments on real-world datasets and various setups show that RECAST effectively achieves high fidelity and query efficiency, as well as stable results even when the access is limited and noisy.

Does intelligence require the ability to reason about phenomena beyond direct experience? It is natural to suspect that some complex thought cannot be captured through language alone. However, of particular concern to this work, is whether visualising counterfactual events can complement language as a mechanism for complex thought. We ask whether LLMs can be trained to utilise such visualisation mechanisms, in a way that benefits their reasoning abilities. Motivated by this question, we propose Einstein World Models. EWMs are a blueprint for LLM-based reasoning systems that place visual-temporal rollouts inside the reasoning trace, allowing them to reason in ways that text alone may not support well. In an EWM, the LLM calls a world-module (not to be confused with a world model), to produce short rollouts of scenes under consideration. The returned rollout is treated not as the answer, but as an inspectable hypothesis that can support later reasoning. Einstein World Models extend the capability of LLMs for tool calling (such as web search or code execution), into the domain of visual thought experiments.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) extend large language models (LLMs) with visual perception, enabling joint reasoning over images and text. Despite inheriting strong reasoning capabilities from LLMs, they remain prone to hallucinations that contradict their visual inputs. Mechanistic studies indicate that this weakness stems from visual laziness: MLLMs encode the correct visual evidence internally, but overly rely on strong language priors during response. Existing alignment methods, such as direct preference optimization, primarily optimize outcome-level rewards based on text. This introduces an optimization bias toward linguistic shortcuts, leading to responses that often contradict the visual evidence. To address this, we propose Visual Information Gain In aLignment (VIGIL), a reinforcement-learning (RL) post-training framework that shifts the focus from numerical reward fitting to causal visual grounding. VIGIL introduces a geometric constraint that explicitly maximizes the mutual information between the visual input and the generated response. We achieve this by penalizing "blind confidence" instances where the model remains improperly certain even when textual-visual attention is masked to create a counterfactual blind state. Extensive experiments show that VIGIL consistently outperforms recent alignment methods across hallucination and reasoning benchmarks without compromising text-only capabilities. Our approach matches the full-data performance of state-of-the-art methods using only 25% of the preference data and even demonstrates emergent spatial grounding capabilities without explicit bounding box supervision.

A central goal of safety research is determining whether a model is misaligned. Prior work has largely focused on detecting concerning behavior. But behavior alone does not establish misalignment: a concerning action can arise from benign causes such as confusion. This motivates model forensics: investigating whether the action was driven by malign intent. In this paper, we propose a baseline protocol for model forensics consisting of two steps, iterated as needed. First, we read the chain of thought (CoT) to generate hypotheses about what drives model behavior. Second, we make edits to the prompt or environment to test these hypotheses. While the CoT is not always faithful, it is a rich source of unsupervised insight that can guide the collection of more rigorous evidence. To evaluate our protocol, we create a suite of six agentic environments where models exhibit concerning behavior, and apply it to each. We establish that Kimi K2 Thinking takes shortcuts due to a genuine disposition towards low-effort actions, by showing this hypothesis successfully predicts its behavior. Through counterfactual experiments, we show DeepSeek R1 deceives out of a desire to be consistent with a previous instance of itself. Our methods nonetheless leave significant room for refinement. For example, when we test whether Kimi K2 Thinking believes it is violating user intent, we find no evidence of such a belief, but without positive controls we cannot confirm our tests would detect it. Overall, we find our simple protocol provides a strong baseline that we hope future work will improve upon. More broadly, our work is a concrete step in developing the growing field of model forensics.

Stepwise group-based RL is an attractive way to train long-horizon LLM agents without a learned critic: it reuses multiple sampled rollouts to estimate local advantages. Its weakness is less visible but more fundamental: every group-relative estimator assumes that the steps it compares are equivalent for credit assignment. We show that current agentic variants violate this assumption through a state-action credit mismatch. The observation-hash partition is overly fine on the state side, creating singleton groups with zero step-level signal, while a single within-group mean is too coarse on the action side, mixing state-value estimation with action-specific credit. We introduce BiPACE (Bisimulation-Guided Policy Optimization with Action Counterfactual Estimation), a drop-in advantage estimator that fixes both sides without adding a critic, auxiliary loss, or extra rollouts. BiGPO clusters steps by cosine distance in the actor's own hidden-state geometry, an empirical policy-induced proxy for bisimulation that substantially lowers the singleton rate left by observation hashing. PACE then recenters returns within each behavioral cluster using action-conditioned peer baselines; its Q-style instance estimates a local Q(s,a)-V(s) nonparametrically. On ALFWorld/Qwen2.5-7B, BiPACE_Q raises overall validation success from GiGPO's 90.8 to $97.1\pm0.9$ over three seeds, and crosses the 95% threshold on every seed, which GiGPO never does within the same budget. On Qwen2.5-1.5B it reaches $93.5\pm1.2$ versus GiGPO's 86.7, and on WebShop and TextCraft it improves over GRPO and GiGPO at both model scales. The measured BiPACE-specific overhead is 11.3% of a single training-step wall time. Yet it changes the estimator's comparison unit from surface identity to approximate behavioral equivalence plus action-side counterfactuals. The code is available at https://github.com/TianxiangZhao/BiPACE.

Histopathological tissue segmentation is essential for computer-aided diagnosis, yet weakly supervised methods often suffer from noisy pseudo-labels generated by Class Activation Mapping (CAM). Existing CAM approaches tend to focus on staining-driven appearance cues rather than true causal tissue morphology, resulting in spurious localization and poor structural consistency. To address this issue, we propose C$^2$RM-Seg, a two-stage framework that integrates causal pseudo-label refinement with structure-aware semantic enhancement. For classification, we introduce a Causal Counterfactual Reasoning Module (C$^2$RM) that decomposes features into latent factors and performs counterfactual intervention via a learned causal structure matrix, suppressing confounding context and producing morphology-aligned CAMs. For segmentation, we design a Dual-Path Structural-Semantic Architecture that combines fine-grained structural features from ResNeSt with global semantic priors from a frozen DINOV3 foundation model. A cross-path gating mechanism adaptively regulates semantic injection using local structural cues to preserve boundary fidelity. To further mitigate residual pseudo-label noise, we propose an Uncertainty-Gated Margin (UGM) loss, which dynamically balances margin enforcement and confidence learning based on prediction uncertainty. Extensive experiments on two public histopathological tissue datasets show that C$^2$RM-Seg achieves state-of-the-art performance.

Visual anomaly detection is often deployed with only normal training images. Most one-class detectors map test patches or features to a normal reference distribution. This works well for local structural defects. Logical anomalies are different. Each visible part may look normal, while the whole image violates a normal count, co-occurrence, or spatial relation. This paper studies whether a model can learn such a category-specific normal world from nominal images alone. We propose the Hypergraph Normal World Model, a normal-only detector that distills frozen DINOv2 patch tokens into patch, relation, and hypergraph statistics. It builds spatial hyperedges over token groups. It then scores each test image with an information quotient that separates local, relational, hyperedge, and hyperedge-relation evidence. On the available MVTec LOCO breakfast-box validation data, the full hypergraph model improves logical anomaly AUROC from 0.8434 for DINOv2 patch-kNN to 0.9279. It also improves over the non-hypergraph variant, from 0.9013 to 0.9279. Few-shot experiments show that the model remains effective with very limited normal images. We also test whether the score reflects normal-world knowledge rather than a shallow mapping. t-SNE separates logical anomalies in the learned energy space. Relation counterfactuals increase the information quotient by 83.13 on average. Random hypergraphs reduce logical AUROC, and hyperedge attribution is much larger on logical anomalies. Qualitative examples show that high scores are driven by relation-bearing terms. These results suggest that logical visual anomaly detection should model normal relations, not only normal local patches.

Over a series of seven papers, Andreas & Günther have introduced seven definitions of actual causation and have classified them as belonging to three different, competing, types of accounts: factual difference-making, counterfactual difference-making, and regularity-based. I show that their most recent - factual difference-making - definition instantiates all three types, thereby proving that these are distinctions without a difference. I further compare their novel account to the other six accounts on several crucial examples, revealing that this undermines all seven of their accounts.

Text-to-image (T2I) generation models have achieved remarkable progress in producing visually realistic images from natural language prompts. Yet it remains unclear whether their success reflects genuine causal understanding or sophisticated pattern matching over visual-textual correlations. Inspired by Russell's inductivist turkey, we introduce Counterfactual-World (CF-World), a counterfactual benchmark designed to investigate whether text-to-image models can generate images under rules that systematically contradict real-world priors. CF-World organizes each scenario into three progressive levels: factual generation under ordinary world knowledge, explicit counterfactual generation with direct visual instructions, and implicit counterfactual generation requiring causal deduction from altered rules. We evaluate both open-source and closed-source T2I models using a Vision Language Model (VLM)-based evaluator (CF-Eval). Furthermore, we introduce two metrics: Prior Resistance Rate (PRR), which measures a models' ability to overcome entrenched real-world priors, and Reasoning Retention Rate (RRR), which assesses whether models can maintain reasoning-dependent counterfactual generation without explicit visual cues. Experiments show that all models exhibit sharp degradation from factual to counterfactual settings. Further analyses suggest that these failures arise because current T2I models encode world knowledge and visual appearances as tightly coupled patterns. Consequently, their heavy reliance on frequent visual co-occurrences within the training data forces them to default to familiar commonsense priors when tasked with rendering counterfactual worlds.

Counterfactual analysis is widely used to study evidence use in vision-language models, but its diagnostic value is limited on well-posed tasks: when several cues independently support the same answer, removing one may not change the prediction. We propose monocular metric object-size estimation as an ill-posed diagnostic setting for evidence selection: because physical size cannot be determined from a single uncalibrated image, models must rely on imperfect cues category priors, target appearance, local context, apparent image size, and scene geometry. We assemble Metric VQA ($10{,}813$ dimension queries from Objectron and $331$ tape-measured in-the-wild scenes) and evaluate $12$ open-weight VLMs ($3$--$397$,B parameters) with counterfactual analysis decomposing six visual and language evidence channels. Even the largest VLMs tested (Qwen3-VL-235B, Qwen3.5-397B, InternVL3.5-241B) trail a text-only frontier LLM on the in-the-wild split. The diagnostic analysis shows: target identity is the most load-bearing cue, target pixels and local context help only some models, apparent size shifts predictions without a directional readout, and global scene geometry is largely unused. We analyze LoRA fine-tuning as an actionable intervention specific to metric estimation: while the task is learnable, the models do not learn to leverage scene geometry.

Causal inference provides a set of principles and tools that allow one to combine data and knowledge about an environment to reason with questions of counterfactual nature, i.e., what would have happened had reality been different, even when no data of this unrealized reality is currently available. Reinforcement learning provides methods to learn a policy that optimizes a specific measure (e.g., reward, regret) when the agent is deployed in an environment and pursues an exploratory, trial-and-error approach. These two disciplines have evolved independently and with virtually no interaction between them. We note that they operate over different aspects of the same building block, counterfactual relations, which makes them umbilically connected. Based on these observations, novel learning opportunities arise when this connection is explicitly acknowledged and mathematized. To realize this potential, we note that any environment where the RL agent is deployed can be decomposed as a collection of autonomous mechanisms with different causal invariances, parsimoniously modeled as a structural causal model; any standard RL setting implicitly encodes such a model. This formalization allows us to put under a unifying treatment different modes of learning, including online, off-policy, and causal calculus learning, which appear unrelated in the literature. However, these modalities are not exhaustive: we introduce several natural and pervasive classes of learning settings that entail novel dimensions of analysis. Specifically, we introduce and discuss through causal lenses generalized policy learning, where to intervene, imitation learning, and counterfactual learning. These tasks lead to a broader view of counterfactual learning and suggest great potential for studying causal inference and reinforcement learning side by side, which we call causal reinforcement learning (CRL).

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in multimodal reasoning. However, prevailing reinforcement learning (RL) paradigms lack explicit counterfactual enhancement and causal learning mechanisms. This fundamental deficiency results in severe grounding failures, manifesting as a tendency to ignore visual evidence in favor of language priors or exhibiting hallucination drift during long chain-of-thought reasoning. To address this root cause, we propose CounterFactual Policy Optimization (CFPO), a novel framework that enforces causal consistency between visual perception and textual reasoning. CFPO introduces a cross-modal counterfactual enhancement mechanism, which regularizes the policy by maximizing the discrepancy between the model's predictions and those from a counterfactual state where critical visual cues are suppressed. This approach seamlessly integrates with standard algorithms like GRPO and DAPO without requiring external reward models or additional supervision. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CFPO significantly improves reasoning fidelity, achieving consistent gains of 3.17%-6.25% over standard RL baselines and 1.32%-2.13% over the state-of-the-art perception-aware method (PAPO). Code is available at https://github.com/Raven-July/CFPO.

Optimizing instructional policies in Intelligent Tutoring Systems (ITS) typically requires costly online experimentation or student simulators that may fail to capture real-world dynamics. This paper introduces an offline contextual bandit framework that learns new adaptive policies directly from logged interaction data. By mapping student-item interactions onto a continuous latent proficiency-difficulty scale using a Rasch model, we cast the tutoring process as a continuous stochastic bandit problem. We propose a novel reward function designed to optimize ''flow'' by balancing task challenge with student success. Our approach includes a round-specific behavior policy estimation that serves as both a propensity model for off-policy evaluation and a diagnostic tool for ITS adaptivity. We demonstrate the efficacy of this framework across four large-scale real-world datasets, achieving consistent policy improvements over the logged behavior policy. The results show that effective instructional policies can be learned and visualized within seconds of computation, providing a scalable path for improving adaptive learning systems without further data collection.

Forced chain-of-thought (CoT) is widely assumed to make vision-language models more reliable on video question answering. We propose a small three-probe evaluation recipe to test that assumption: paired accuracy across direct, CoT, answer-first, and no-video conditions; a counterfactual video-swap diagnostic over the CoT chains; and a four-rung visual-degradation ladder. Each probe is reported under both a strict and a permissive regex scorer, with multiplicity correction over a manuscript-declared primary family. Applied to Qwen2.5-VL on Video-MME subsets, the recipe returns a two-part finding. The CoT chains are strongly video-conditioned: swapping the input video collapses chain overlap and flips most final letters, the opposite of what a "boilerplate-chain" null would predict. Yet on the same data, forced CoT does not improve MCQ accuracy, and on the smaller 7B model it produces a small but statistically supported drop under a post-hoc primary scorer choice. We do not claim this generalizes beyond the Qwen2.5-VL / Video-MME instantiation; the raw responses and a single recomputation script will be released with the supplementary material so every number can be re-derived.

Lip-syncing deepfakes are among the most challenging forms of manipulated media because their artifacts are localized almost exclusively to the mouth region and evolve dynamically over time. Detecting such deepfakes requires precise temporal and spatial modeling of lip motion. In this paper, we propose LoCC, a novel detection framework that performs fine-grained detection and localization of lip-syncing deepfakes at both segment and frame levels. Unlike prior approaches that analyze videos holistically, our method evaluates whether each frame aligns with a counterfactual estimate generated from its temporal neighbors. Real videos exhibit strong and stable consistency, whereas lip-sync deepfakes introduce localized inconsistencies. Following a teacher-student learning paradigm, our model effectively captures these frame-level discrepancies and achieves superior performance over state-of-the-art methods on multiple benchmark lip-syncing deepfake datasets, including LAV-DF, AVDF1M, FakeAVCeleb, and KODF, and generalizes well across compression levels and datasets.

In this study, we propose a novel pipeline for generic, model-agnostic, local-level counterfactual explainability in graph neural networks (GNNs). Although counterfactual explainers capable of both adding and removing edges have emerged in recent years, the need for generic and efficient solutions remains unmet, particularly concerning qualitative explanation generation. Our approach couples progress in factual explainability with missing edge prediction models rooted in link prediction research, in order to enhance the quality, robustness and intuitiveness of explanations. A multi-faceted experimental analysis conducted on real-world and synthetic graph classification benchmarks, both binary and multi-label, demonstrates the advancements in comparison to state-of-the-art baselines across diverse metrics.

Runtime oversight for LLM agents is commonly framed as scalar risk prediction: estimate failure likelihood, confidence, or uncertainty, then intervene once the score crosses a threshold. We argue that this framing targets the wrong object for control. The relevant question is not how likely the agent is to fail if it continues, but whether an available intervention would improve the outcome. Two trajectory prefixes can have the same risk estimate while requiring different actions, because one remains recoverable and the other does not. We formalize this mismatch as target error and identify intervention advantage, the expected utility gain from intervening rather than continuing, as the decision object for oversight. To measure this mismatch, we introduce prefix branching, a same-prefix counterfactual protocol that executes candidate actions from identical trajectory states. Across four benchmarks, action-conditioned control yields regime-dependent gains over scalar routing. In a calibration decomposition, recalibrating the same scalar score improves prediction metrics but leaves control regret unchanged, showing that calibration alone does not repair target error. A simple prefix-only action-conditioned controller substantially reduces regret in the strongest interactive regime, from 0.506 to 0.110 on ALFWorld. Gains shrink when interventions are weak or when scalar routing already preserves intervention-relevant information. These results suggest that LLM-agent oversight should move from calibrated risk scoring toward action-conditioned value estimation.

Neurosymbolic systems such as DeepProbLog combine neural perception with probabilistic logic, but standard inference is associational. Counterfactual reasoning additionally requires a causal semantics for interventions and evidence. We introduce DeepSWIP, a single-world counterfactual semantics for DeepProbLog programs. Using neural materialization, we reduce fixed-context neural predicates to ordinary ProbLog choices, apply Single World Intervention Programs (SWIPs), and compute counterfactuals by weighted model counting (WMC) over a single transformed program. Under finite grounding and unique-supported-model assumptions, DeepSWIP is exact relative to the learned materialized FCM. The standard quotient-WMC form of ProbLog conditionals identifies active neural probabilities and explains intervention cleaning, calibration sensitivity, and rare-evidence instability. Experiments on MPI3D confirm the transformation against a DeepTwin construction against 12,000 queries, as predicted and a 2.14$\times$ inference speedup from avoiding the Twin's endogenous duplication. A SUMO HOV experiment shows that neural calibration degradation biases plug-in estimates, while a correctly scoped randomized-policy AIPW estimator removes most first-order bias for population mean and ATE estimands. Code is at https://github.com/saibib/deep_SWIP.

Counterfactual explanations are widely used to provide algorithmic recourse in high-stakes decision-making systems. Most existing methods seek the smallest change to an input that flips a model's decision. However, decision-makers often rely not only on predicted labels but also on confidence thresholds and risk margins. Counterfactuals that barely cross a decision boundary can be fragile and unstable under noise or model variation. In this paper, we propose Target-confidence Recourse Using tSeTlin machines (TRUST), a framework in which users explicitly specify the desired prediction confidence for recourse. Rather than generating counterfactuals and evaluating confidence afterward, TRUST directly searches for minimal changes that satisfy a user-defined confidence target, enabling comparison of recourse options in terms of cost, confidence, and robustness. We instantiate TRUST using a Probabilistic Tsetlin Machine (PTM) combined with Bayesian optimization. The probabilistic clause-based structure of PTM links prediction confidence to the stability of decision rules. We show that counterfactuals satisfying the same rules can still differ substantially in reliability depending on how securely they satisfy those rules, revealing whether decisions are supported by robust or fragile clause activations. Experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets demonstrate that target-confidence counterfactuals produce more robust and interpretable recourse than conventional boundary-based approaches. Across multiple benchmarks, TRUST achieves perfect robustness while maintaining low recourse cost, including an L2 distance of 0.10 on the Haberman dataset at 0.92 confidence. By explicitly controlling confidence and exposing rule-level stability, TRUST provides actionable recourse for high-stakes decision support.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in hiring workflows, yet most research on gender bias in LLM hiring decisions has focused on English-language, Western-format resumes. This study examines whether pro-female gender bias extends to a Japanese corporate context and evaluates two practical mitigation strategies. Using a counterfactual resume design with 60 Japanese rirekisho-format resumes, 12 name pairs selected on linguistically grounded gender-signal criteria, and five state-of-the-art LLMs (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Llama 3.3 70B), we conducted 43,200 API calls across baseline, prompt instruction, and privacy filter conditions. A crossed random-effects linear mixed model confirms a significant pro-female bias across all five models, replicating Western findings in a non-Western context. A prompt-level gender-neutrality instruction produces no meaningful reduction in bias. A name-reliance analysis formally identifies the candidate name as the primary gender channel: removing the name from the prompt reduces the female effect by nearly its full magnitude. An unexpected incompatibility between the privacy filter and GPT-4o's content safety filter, resulting in a 42% refusal rate, highlights a practical deployment challenge for name anonymization in LLM-assisted recruitment pipelines.