Counterfactuals

Natural language understanding often depends on meanings that are implied rather than explicitly stated, requiring pragmatic reasoning. Despite strong performance on math and logical reasoning, large language models (LLMs) still struggle with making pragmatic inferences, often choosing literal interpretations. To improve LLM pragmatic reasoning, we introduce PragReST, a self-supervised framework that constructs pragmatic QA data, generates counterfactual reasoning traces, and trains models to internalize them through supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning, without human-labeled training data or distillation from a stronger teacher. Across four pragmatic benchmarks (PragMega, Ludwig, MetoQA, and AltPrag), PragReST improves over backbone models, task-specific pragmatic tuning baselines, and non-counterfactual variants of the same pipeline. On accuracy-based benchmarks, PragReST improves over the instruct backbone by 5.37 and 5.50% (absolute) for Qwen3-8B and Qwen3-14B, respectively. Our error analysis and ablations underscore the importance of counterfactual reasoning: PragReST primarily reduces errors caused by failures to contrast observed utterances with plausible alternatives, and removing counterfactual reasoning substantially reduces performance. Moreover, our training preserves out-of-domain performance on general-knowledge and mathematical reasoning benchmarks.

The increasing use of machine learning algorithms in social applications has raised concerns about fairness and transparency, leading to the development of counterfactual explanations. These explanations supports individuals to understand and potentially alter unfavorable decisions in areas such as loan applications, job selections, and more, by providing actionable changes to input features that would lead to a desired outcome. Existing methods often struggle to balance feasibility, plausibility, and computational efficiency. To address this, we introduce P$^2$CE, an algorithm for generating plausible Pareto-optimal counterfactual explanations, offering users a diverse set of optimal trade-offs between different notions of feasibility. P$^2$CE employs an auxiliary isolation forest outlier detector to ensure that explanations are in accordance with the data distribution and leverages SHAP values to obtain optimal results with short computing times, regardless of the underlying model. Our algorithm was empirically evaluated on three datasets, demonstrating superior performance in terms of both solution quality and computational efficiency compared to related techniques.

Decision-making with deep learning-based time series forecasting requires not only accurate predictions but also actionable insights. However, current architectures do not inherently provide such information. Specifically, guidance is needed on how current conditions must be modified to shift from a predicted outcome to a desired future scenario. Counterfactual explanations provide a natural framework for this task, as they represent minimal input changes that alter the model's prediction, indicating when and how intervention is required. Existing approaches rely on instance-wise optimization, leading to inconsistency across instances, high computational costs, and limited applicability in real-time settings. To address these limitations, we reformulate counterfactual generation for time series forecasting as the problem of learning a globally consistent intervention strategy, allowing counterfactuals to be generated through a single shared function. We propose Counterfactual Time Series Explanations (ConTex), a model-agnostic, decomposed architecture comprising a temporal context encoder and a conditional encoder, followed by two heads that capture interventions in terms of temporal relevance and modification strength. This structure overcomes the instability and inconsistency of instance-based approaches by producing targeted, interpretable interventions across time and feature dimensions in a single forward pass, making it suitable for real-time applications. Across multiple forecasting architectures and benchmark datasets, ConTex achieves state-of-the-art validity while generating sparse counterfactuals that minimize the number of necessary interventions. Additionally, our approach reduces computational cost by at least 12-36x compared to instance-wise generation and supports real-time inference at approximately 0.007 seconds.

Although pitch sequencing is a central topic in baseball analytics, previous studies have primarily focused on optimizing the final pitch within a single plate appearance, leaving the role of preceding setup pitches and their impact on long-term season-level performance insufficiently examined. To address these issues, this study conducted counterfactual analyses using MLB Statcast data. A Transformer-based machine-learning model was trained to predict whether a target pitch would result in an in-play outcome or swing-out. Counterfactual pitch sequences were then generated by replacing either the final pitch or the preceding setup pitch with alternative pitch types and locations while keeping the surrounding contextual information fixed. Optimal counterfactual selections were defined as those that minimized the predicted in-play probability, and their expected effects on pitchers' seasonal statistics were estimated using regression models linking model outputs to season statistics. The results suggest that the optimization of both final and setup pitches may substantially influence season-level performance, including improvements of more than 1.0 in K/9. The analyses also provided several practical insights, including velocity-band-specific effective locations, the importance of pitch commands, and the expansion of pitch-selection options through middle-velocity pitches. These findings quantitatively support the strategic importance of pitch sequencing in baseball.

Algorithmic explanations are intended to help stakeholders understand opaque algorithmic decisions, but in practice, they often fall short. First, the meaning of algorithmic explanations is often not what one might intuitively expect, so expert knowledge is required to interpret them correctly. Second, recent work has shown that popular explanation algorithms are uninformative about the behavior of complex decision functions. Together, these issues create a gap between what explanations appear to convey and what they actually provide. In this work, we propose Explanation Cards for Explanation Algorithms, which augment standard explanations with complementary information about robustness and validity, as well as clear instructions for interpretation. The complementary information can render otherwise uninformative explanations practically useful, while also helping to detect cases where they are not. Importantly, the interpretation instructions in explanation cards shift responsibility from users to providers: Rather than expecting users to recognize what can and cannot be concluded from an explanation, providers must make this explicit upfront. Using counterfactual explanations and SHAP as examples, we demonstrate how providers can construct explanation cards and that these cards provide users with the guidance needed for sound interpretation. We further argue that explanation cards offer a practical means of operationalising the explainability provisions of the EU AI Act. Overall, explanation cards are a significant step toward making explanation algorithms fit for real-world use cases.

Algorithmic recourse methods provide counterfactual explanations that inform individuals of the actions required to overturn an unfavorable model decision. Despite rapid methodological progress, principled comparison remains elusive; existing frameworks are often difficult to extend and lack both interoperability and systematic verification that integrated methods faithfully reproduce their originally reported results. We introduce \emph{RecourseBench}, a unified evaluation framework built around three commitments namely, modularity, reproducibility, and interactivity. The framework decomposes the pipeline into five fully decoupled layers -- Data, Preprocessing, Model, Recourse Method, and Evaluation -- governed by abstract interfaces and a dynamic registry. To address the reproducibility gap in prior benchmarks, we introduce a four-tier classification system in which every integrated method is validated by an automated test suite against its originally reported results. We further provide an interactive web interface for flexible, configuration-driven comparison across methods, datasets, and model architectures. Our framework currently integrates 28 state-of-the-art recourse methods and, to our knowledge, constitutes the first recourse benchmark to explicitly enforce method-level reproducibility through automated, quantitative testing.

Multimodal models can name the action units (AUs) behind a facial emotion, but their AU->emotion rationales are typically plausible rather than faithful: nothing forces the AUs a model invokes to be the AUs that actually drive its prediction. We cast AU->emotion reasoning as a counterfactual-consistency problem between the rationale, the label, and a structural AU->emotion causal graph G, and propose FACR, which grounds the reasoner in an independently induced, polarity-aware G and trains a counterfactual-faithfulness objective: a do-intervention on an AU that G marks causal for a class must move the prediction, while one it marks irrelevant must leave it unchanged. Faithfulness is thereby both trainable and measurable through a matching interventional metric, which we evaluate against a known causal structure, the PSPI pain-AU composition, as no existing affective-reasoning benchmark allows. We are explicit that this metric tests fidelity to the supplied structure rather than its rediscovery: it asks whether the trained reasoner invokes the AUs the structure marks causal, on held-out subjects and a second dataset. Under subject-independent evaluation on UNBC-PAIN, the objective raises the agreement between the invoked AUs and the PSPI composition from a no-objective baseline of 0.08 to 0.57, at a small detection cost; an unfaithfulness control attributes the gain to the objective. On a cross-dataset emotion transfer, the objective likewise raises fidelity to G on a seven-class task (0.50 to 0.84). Finally, we attach a language verbalizer and extend the audit to the generated text: biasing each action unit's emission by its latent activation makes the rationale faithful by construction, so that ablating an AU removes it from the explanation, a property that transfers to a second language-model backbone, whereas a freely generated rationale is unfaithful.

Grammatical error correction (GEC) systems are usually trained and evaluated on GEC benchmarks, but their performance often drops sharply once the surrounding context is slightly perturbed or extended. This indicates that the existing GEC models usually fail to understand the error patterns in the varying contexts. In this paper, we thoroughly investigate the counterfactuals for GEC tasks, where the subtle changes to the contexts could lead to the label flipping issue. We propose CoCoGEC, a counterfactual generation framework that creates copies of training instances with error-irrelevant contexts altered. Our framework systematically generates counterfactuals by (1) generating intra- and inter-sentence counterfactuals that maintain the error patterns as well as syntax of the original instances by altering the word-level and sentence-level contexts; (2) revising the generated counterfactuals by selecting the instances with flipped labels and high GEC Mutual Information (MI) coefficient. Extensive experiments show that our method substantially improves the stability of GEC models, outperforming a set of data augmentation baselines. Particularly, it could achieve absolute F0.5 gains of +9.9, +11.3, and +20.8 points on the perturbed BEA-19*,CoNLL-14*, and TEM-8* data set.Our code is released at https://github.com/Quinnok/CoCoGEC

How to define a good explanation is a long-standing philosophical debate which has found recent renewed interest in the context of AI outputs. Explainability is crucial for AI adoption in many contexts, but in order to produce good explanations of AI systems, we must first have an understanding of what good explanations are. In this paper we propose a definition inspired by the notion of counterfactual explanations, however we argue that one must also take into account the interlocutor's prior beliefs in each fact that could be offered in an explanation. We explore the ramifications of this definition for AI explainability and, in particular, why LLM outputs are difficult to produce good explanations for.

Reliable operation of multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems depends on debugging long execution traces, where the few causally decisive events are buried in unstructured logs of messages, routes, memory writes, and tool calls. The standard tool is counterfactual replay (rewind, edit, and re-run the trajectory to measure each event's effect), but its cost grows linearly with the number of candidate events, making exhaustive replay infeasible at scale. We frame trace debugging as a knowledge-based decision-support problem. Each trace is compiled into a structured event knowledge graph over routing, memory, tool-use, uncertainty, and latent evidence, and a calibrated predictor decides where a scarce replay budget should be spent. We do not propose a new replay oracle; we propose a method to predict its results without paying the replay cost. We formulate zero-replay counterfactual-effect prediction: given a trace under a fixed budget, predict which events the oracle would mark high-effect before any replay is performed. BranchPoint-Latent is a lightweight predictor over observable, structural, uncertainty, and latent features of the knowledge graph. Calibrated against a deterministic replay oracle across 37 trace families, a single learning-to-rank gradient-boosted predictor raises per-trace localization (Branch Recall@5) from 0.73 to 0.93 on held-out families at zero oracle-replay cost. Rather than claiming universal dominance, we characterize when cheap graph centrality suffices and when learned evidence is necessary. The result is an auditable, cost-efficient decision-support system for AI-reliability debugging, positioned explicitly on the cost-accuracy frontier with reproducible artifacts.

Modern decision systems increasingly rely on learned components whose outputs may be confident yet wrong, exposing downstream actions to costly errors. We introduce Risk-Aware Causal Gating (RACG), a framework that decides whether to act on, defer, or abstain from a model's prediction by combining causal effect estimation with calibrated risk control. RACG models the causal pathway from candidate actions to outcomes and gates each decision according to an estimated counterfactual risk rather than raw predictive confidence. To make gating reliable, we derive distribution-free bounds on the probability of acting under high-risk conditions and show how these bounds translate into operating thresholds that satisfy user-specified safety constraints. We further propose an adaptive gating policy that adjusts to distribution shift by monitoring discrepancies between predicted and realized outcomes, tightening the gate when causal assumptions appear violated. Across simulated interventions and real-world decision benchmarks, RACG reduces high-cost errors substantially while preserving most of the utility of an ungated policy, and it outperforms confidence-based and selective-prediction baselines at matched abstention rates. Our results indicate that explicitly separating causal risk from predictive uncertainty yields decision systems that are both safer and more transparent, offering a principled mechanism for trustworthy automation in high-stakes settings.

Can a learned model capture how faults propagate through a large-scale network and use this knowledge to causally attribute customer impact to its underlying root cause? Existing root cause analysis techniques often rely on static rules, correlation heuristics, or topology-local reasoning, which struggle to generalize in dynamic environments where faults propagate across complex physical and logical dependencies. We present NetCause, a self-supervised learning-based framework that models network incidents as graph-temporal processes and uses counterfactual simulation to rank candidate root causes. This approach produces an interpretable ranking of root cause hypotheses and integrates naturally with operator-defined mitigation and remediation actions. We train the model on over 1,500 incidents collected over six months from a leading cloud provider's production network and evaluate it on 31 expert-labeled incidents. NetCause consistently improves root cause ranking quality in the regime most relevant to operational decision-making, achieving a 16.1% accuracy improvement over a rule-based heuristic baseline. While training is computationally intensive, inference is lightweight, requiring only seconds of GPU runtime per incident (well below typical telemetry collection latencies).

Flow matching and diffusion models enable conditional generation across domains ranging from images to proteins, with recent extensions to out-of-distribution contexts. Yet generative models of neural time series have largely remained restricted to categorical conditioning, precluding compositional and zero-shot generalization. In this work, we propose a per-timestep conditioned diffusion transformer for generating realistic fMRI brain dynamics during unseen cognitive tasks by injecting both compositional language and optional spatial priors in-context. Such zero-shot generation could enable counterfactual neuroscience by supporting in-silico design and evaluation of novel cognitive experiments before empirical validation. Leveraging this model, we evaluate across hundreds of held-out task conditions and characterize predictive performance in relation to the training manifold. From language alone, the model recovers region-specific recruitment across tasks and held-out spatial activation patterns. Spatial priors, when available, complement the text pathway by anchoring generation in regions of task space where language alone degrades, while retaining the compositional structure needed for counterfactual task specification. To our knowledge this is the first generative model of whole-cortex fMRI dynamics for unseen cognitive tasks, advancing counterfactual neuroscience and data-driven experimental design.

Forecasting real-world events requires language-model agents to reason under uncertainty from incomplete, time-bounded information. Yet evaluating whether agents genuinely forecast requires more than final-answer accuracy: a model may be correct by recalling memorized training facts, citing fabricated evidence, or producing an unsupported causal story. We present WorldReasoner, an evaluation framework for temporally valid event forecasting. Each task gives an agent a resolved forecasting question, a simulated forecast date, and access only to evidence available before that date; after resolution, the framework scores the submitted probability, cited evidence, and optional causal event graph. WorldReasoner reports three complementary axes: outcome quality against resolved answers, evidence quality over cited sources, and reasoning quality against post-resolution hindsight graphs. The benchmark is built by an agentic construction pipeline that generates forecasting questions, collects time-stamped evidence, and builds hindsight reference graphs at scale, yielding 345 resolved tasks derived from 14,141 articles with graphs covering 8,087 extracted events. Across six controlled agent settings, temporally valid retrieval is the strongest driver of outcome accuracy; causal graph construction improves key-event recovery; and correct graph-enabled forecasts are more strongly grounded in key events and relevant sources, yet agents still struggle to convert grounded evidence into calibrated probabilities.

We recast pass evaluation in football (soccer) as a Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS)-like evaluation problem whose components mostly exist in the literature under different names: a value model (possession value), a world model (multi-agent trajectories with ball interactions), and a policy over counterfactual actions (sampling pass variants with noise). Building on the first public high-fidelity tracking dataset with 3D ball trajectories from the Bundesliga, we introduce Monte Carlo Pass Search (MCPS), which infers kick parameters for each observed pass, samples execution variants and option variants, rolls each candidate forward with a ball-conditioned world model until the next ball interaction, and scores outcomes with a learned value model to obtain a distribution over gained value. This distribution enables distribution-aware attribution with two complementary execution-surplus scores used for analysis and ranking: mean-based and percentile-based scores. To make the world model sample-efficient under limited public data, we adapt a discrete-token, autoregressive trajectory generator from autonomous driving (SMART) and show it yields strong best-of-20 forecasting accuracy compared to baselines, while supporting fully hypothetical rollouts for downstream evaluation. We have released model checkpoints and code.

A common assumption holds that enough observational and interventional data, given to a strong enough predictor, suffices. We report a failure mode that contradicts it. Across hundreds of structural causal models, on identified quantities a strong predictor and a Bayesian baseline both succeed, but on unidentified quantities (the couplings between counterfactual worlds) the predictor collapses to a point, on 28% of models to one no valid model can produce, while the truth is an admissible interval more data never narrows. The gap is structural: prediction cannot represent uncertainty over counterfactual couplings. We cast a world model as a single positive semidefinite coupling kernel K(T,T') over admissible worlds, whose diagonal is the ordinary posterior (what a predictor recovers) and whose off-diagonal is the cross-world coupling it cannot, which every counterfactual reads. The paper is the theory of that off-diagonal. It is real: two states with identical posteriors differ on a cross-world query, and the off-diagonal is the coupling that fixes counterfactuals. It can be bounded: positive semidefiniteness is partial-identifying information the marginals lack, and enforcing it bounds counterfactuals in polynomial time where the exact response-type program is intractable. Logical structure sharpens it: ontology axioms tighten the bound by up to a third, propagating to couplings they never touch. It can be acquired: targeted scars, constraints learned from encountered infeasibilities, close the gap several times faster than untargeted ones. Its full reconstruction is approximate counting of the admissible worlds, tractable below the Sly-Sun threshold and inapproximable above; we do not claim to beat the worst case.

Autonomous driving relies on computationally intensive perception pipelines to continuously detect and track objects in the surrounding environment. While some objects are key to plan safe and effective maneuvers, others may not be relevant and have no impact on the autonomous vehicle's driving decisions. Focusing on relevant objects allows a more efficient usage of available computational resources, reduces processing latencies, and limits the downstream propagation of perception noise. In this work, we propose a novel self-supervised approach based on counterfactual analysis to develop a relevance model - an AI-based tool that quantifies the relevance of objects for an autonomous vehicle. To demonstrate the potential of the proposed approach, we train a relevance model on a synthetic causal dataset generated in a selected urban scenario. Results show that the relevance model is able to accurately estimate the objects' relevance with millisecond-level latency, enabling real-time relevance estimation also in high-density scenarios. We also show that the relevance model can be used to build relevance heatmaps that offer valuable insights into the autonomous vehicle's driving policy and can be used to proactively inform perception and planning tasks. We openly release both the relevance model and the causal dataset.

Multi-agent debate frameworks have been shown to improve large language model performance in convergent tasks, but they are currently optimized in a way that heavily favors final output accuracy rather than stability of the process. During long-horizon exchanges reactive systems under sustained perturbations often experience logic degradation, argument repetition, and role drift. To structurally prevent the identity loss and maintain the process fidelity, we introduce Knowledge-Grounded Counterfactual Reasoning (KG-CFR), a dual-stage architecture that enforces a strict separation of concerns between a private, retrieval-augmented planning buffer, and a public execution layer. We assess this system in Dynamic Resource Allocation under Uncertainty (DRAU), a dedicated 1v1v1 environment, introducing diversity as distinct from standard debate settings. Over 270 completely factorial crisis simulation trajectories with stochastic environmental shocks, KG-CFR prevents judge-detected critical post-shock degradation (defined as a quality shift, $Δ\le -0.20$) in more than 95% of perturbed runs, increasing the overall argument quality from 0.694 to 0.822. Our primary contribution is the demonstration of architectural decoupling being an important factor of systemic resilience enhancement under sustained pressure without quality loss. Furthermore, we introduce custom vector metrics for discourse divergence and plan-execution alignment that provide strong, directionally consistent evidence of operational stability. Our ablation experiments suggest that the proper doctrinal grounding can be an equally important factor for argument quality, as the prospective planning. KG-CFR, according to our initial metric evaluations, reduces semantic looping, by preserving the agent's consistency with the original plan.

Identification conditions describe the computability of a target query or parameter of interest as a function of the type and amount of information available. In causal identification, this information is often expressed in the form of a causal graph, and data are observed or collected for some subset of variables in the graph. Target queries may be for a single effect alone or for a class of effects in a given model. The derivation of an identification algorithm then defines mathematically the process by which the desired causal effect(s) can be uniquely determined, theoretically, in expectation. Identifiability in expectation, or 'theoretical identifiability,' generally assumes asymptotic properties, infinite data, or other mathematically idealized conditions. In this paper, we explore a fundamental distinction between this theoretical, idealized notion of identifiability and a proposed alternative that is computation-bound. The framework we propose - 'computational identifiability' - is to instead define a finite computational search procedure for an empirical estimator. If this process finds an estimator empirically, within a desired error tolerance, then identifiability is satisfied, conditional on the specified assumptions of the search (i.e., a prior distribution over the parameters) and conditional on the search procedure itself. Through several experiments, we demonstrate how this framework allows us to answer fine-grained, practical identification questions, such as identification with small finite samples, with ambiguous graphical criteria, with mixed observational-interventional data, and across counterfactual data and estimands. Code is available at https://github.com/lbynum/metadentify.

Recent advances in video multimodal models have significantly improved VideoQA performance. However, these systems often rely on spurious statistical correlations rather than answer-relevant causal evidence, resulting in unfaithful and brittle reasoning, especially in complex real-world scenarios. Existing methods either rely on cross-modality correlations, costly curated training resources, or insufficient causal assumptions and constraints, and typically operate at the time-interval level. As a result, they fail to explicitly disentangle causal visual cues from confounders and provide limited fine-grained evidence localization. To address this issue, we propose a Counterfactual Reasoning framework for fine-grained Evidence Disentanglement (CREDiT). CREDiT formulates the VideoQA process using a structural causal model and learns cross-modality representations that are explicitly decomposed into causal and non-causal components under independence and minimality constraints. To facilitate faithful disentanglement, we introduce feature-level causal interventions and construct counterfactual inputs that approximate causal effects while suppressing non-causal correlations. Extensive experiments on NExT-GQA, SportsQA, and SPORTU-video demonstrate that CREDiT consistently improves answer accuracy and reasoning reliability across both generic and complex sports scenarios, leading to more trustworthy VideoQA systems.

Reward models trained from pairwise preferences often exploit superficial shortcut cues rather than learning true response quality. We propose DynaCF, a dynamic reweighting framework for mitigating shortcut learning in reward model training. Unlike static shortcut heuristics, DynaCF measures shortcut sensitivity online during optimization by applying semantics-preserving counterfactual perturbations and tracking the resulting margin shifts and preference flips under the current model. Samples with higher shortcut sensitivity are dynamically downweighted in the Bradley-Terry objective, encouraging the model to rely less on superficial patterns and more on task-relevant preference signals. Extensive experiments show that DynaCF consistently improves robustness in preference modeling.

Visual Language Models (VLMs) are known to produce hallucinated predictions that are not grounded in visual evidence, yet existing approaches lack a principled understanding of how robust such predictions are under counterfactual perturbations. In this work, we study the sample complexity of counterfactual robustness for hallucinated outputs in VLMs. We define a causal influence metric based on log-probability differences between factual, counterfactual, and activation-patched runs, and use it to characterize the stability of hallucinated predictions. By leveraging circuit discovery techniques (CD-T), we identify model components responsible for these predictions and track their activation differences across counterfactual samples. We then derive empirical bounds on the minimum number of counterfactual samples m required to reliably detect instability in hallucinated outputs, using concentration inequalities and variance estimates of the causal influence distribution.

Counterfactual recourse aims to provide actionable feature changes that would alter an unfavorable decision made by a predictive model. In practice, affected individuals often benefit from multiple feasible alternatives rather than a single optimal explanation. A natural way to produce such alternatives is to prompt large language models (LLMs). However, prompting incurs a practical constraint: the number of LLM calls is often the dominant computational and economic cost. Together, the need for multiple alternatives and this cost constraint shift the problem from finding a single high-quality counterfactual to efficiently generating a set of oracle-validated counterfactuals under a fixed LLM-call budget. In this work, we study counterfactual recourse generation in the LLM-agentic setting as a fixed-budget search problem and propose Comp-MCTS, an agentic tree-search framework that maximizes the yield of unique, oracle-validated counterfactuals under this budget while maintaining favorable quantity--quality trade-offs. Comp-MCTS allocates the budget toward novel intervention directions via LLM-based proposal generation, oracle validation, and compression-guided pruning, in a training-free, oracle-only setting. Experiments on four real-world tabular datasets show that Comp-MCTS substantially outperforms single-candidate LATS-style baselines in the yield of unique, oracle-validated counterfactuals, and offers favorable quantity--quality--efficiency trade-offs against stronger multi-candidate variants: comparable or higher yield at similar or lower oracle-evaluation cost on three of four datasets, plus competitive proximity, sparsity, and novelty.

Reward models play a pivotal role in reinforcement learning (RL) and multi-modal trajectory selection for autonomous driving. However, acquiring such rewards typically relies on hand-crafted rule-based objectives or perception ground truth, which hinders generalization for data-scaling. While Vision-Language Models (VLMs) have demonstrated feasibility as reward models in other domains, their effectiveness in driving tasks remains underexplored. In this work, we bridge this gap by (1) introducing DriveReward, a reasoning trajectory evaluation dataset rigorously labeled via temporally-grounded visual guidance, and augmented with counterfactual driving behaviors., (2) alongside a specialized Vision-Language Reward Model. To address the scarcity of failure cases in conventional datasets, we propose a counterfactual data annotation scheme to construct cases encompassing diverse driving styles and erroneous behaviors. Evaluations on our proposed benchmark reveal that even leading open-source and proprietary VLMs fail to excel across all tasks, highlighting significant room for improvement in existing models. Building on these findings, we subsequently tailor a specialized 1B reward model that outperforms larger VLMs on task-specific reward alignment. Finally, we validate our reward model's effectiveness by integrating it into RL finetuning and multi-modal trajectory scoring across multiple baselines, achieving performance comparable to rule-based reward calculations in both open-loop and closed-loop evaluation.

Tissue graph counterfactuals ask how a cell's expression would change under altered spatial neighbor contexts. Such queries are central to predicting cell behavior in tissues, but lack a unified definition, with existing methods targeting specific intervention types or treating cells as i.i.d. In this work, we first formalize tissue graph counterfactuals as a class of spatial interventions that either rewire connections between cells (edge perturbation) or modify the expression of their neighbors (node perturbation). We then introduce Cellina (https://cellina.readthedocs.io) - a framework that uses supervised disentanglement to decompose a cell's intrinsic state from its spatial context, using the latter as a conditioning input for counterfactual predictions. Across benchmarks spanning over 2.5 million spatially-resolved cells in colorectal cancer and mouse brain, Cellina outperforms spatially-informed and non-spatial competitors in in-silico graph perturbations, disentanglement, and scalability. Additionally, we show that Cellina reveals biologically distinct cancer subdomains in an unsupervised manner and enables targeted neighbor perturbation simulations.

When an LLM agent fails -- issues a refund it should not have, calls the wrong tool, leaks data -- existing tooling answers what happened (observability) or whether it passed (evaluation), but not which step caused the failure. The obvious heuristics are wrong: the step that executes the harmful action is usually not the step that decided on it, and LLM-judge attribution is correlational and unreliable (state-of-the-art step-level accuracy on the Who&When benchmark is about 14%). We present Causal Agent Replay (CAR), which answers the question by intervention: it models an agent run as a structural causal model, applies a do-operation to a step, and re-executes the trajectory forward under the same stochastic policy, measuring the shift in the outcome distribution. We define an intervention algebra over agent steps, a single-step contrastive estimator whose point-of-commitment rule resolves a confound specific to stochastic run-forward, and a budget-bounded Monte-Carlo Shapley estimator that splits credit across interacting steps. Every effect is reported with confidence intervals. We validate against synthetic structural causal models with planted ground truth: the contrastive estimator recovers the pivotal step, and Shapley recovers a two-step interaction (0.44, 0.45, ~0; efficiency sum 0.909 versus the analytic 0.91). CAR is open source and runs on hosted or free local models.

Algorithmic trading systems on decentralised exchanges (DEXs) reject most candidate tokens they evaluate. The counterfactual outcome of rejected candidates (what would have happened had the system entered) is rarely measured. This paper introduces Post-Rejection Follow-up Sampling (PRFS). A separate tracking subsystem samples each rejected token's price and liquidity at a configurable cadence, over a horizon of up to twenty-four hours. PRFS produces the data needed to evaluate filter precision against actual market outcomes of rejected candidates, not against synthetic backtest reconstructions. The methodology, data architecture, and deposit format are described in Section III. The companion dataset contains 67,000 forward-outcome observation rows across 2,997 rejection events spanning 457 unique mints, collected over a continuous eight-day window (2026-04-10 to 2026-04-19, UTC). Approximately 55 percent of rejection events receive at least one forward observation; coverage at the mint level is complete. The principal binding constraint on downstream classification is per-event horizon density, not event-level coverage. PRFS is dataset-independent. It generalises to any algorithmic decision system in which rejections substantially outnumber executions.

Generative models for counterfactual outcomes have great potential to support decision-making under complex interventions, but existing approaches are limited by unstable estimation, poor generalization across environments, and bias from nuisance model misspecification. We introduce ADIGen, a framework for automatic, debiased, and invariant counterfactual generation under general interventions, including high-dimensional interventions and outcomes. ADIGen combines Riesz regression to avoid unstable density-ratio estimation, causal invariance to improve generalization under distribution shift, and orthogonal statistical learning to obtain doubly robust guarantees against nuisance model misspecification. We provide excess-risk bounds showing that ADIGen controls counterfactual risk under general interventions, with a product-bias nuisance remainder and an invariant risk bound across environments.

Vision-language driving models increasingly use reasoning supervision to bridge perception, prediction, and planning, but existing driving rationales are often free-form and expensive to generate with frontier models. We present VeriDrive, a framework for constructing planning-oriented, verifiable counterfactual supervision. VeriDrive converts driving reasoning into a structured Perception-Evaluation-Revision chain that grounds key objects in future motion, evaluates alternative ego trajectories with rule-checkable evidence, revises risky intent toward expert behavior, and produces final planning targets. To scale data construction, VeriDrive combines local generation with validator-guided selective correction, escalating only invalid or difficult samples. We build the VeriDrive dataset on nuScenes and train under the Omni-Q protocol. Controlled open-loop experiments show that VeriDrive improves L2, Collision, and Intersection over OmniDrive while reducing logged token usage, generation time, and actual paid LLM/VLM cost. These results show that auditable intermediate fields and structured revision targets can improve vision-language planning supervision under realistic annotation budgets. Code, prompts, and validator scripts are coming soon and will be released after the review process.

Scalable data attribution methods typically assign isolated utility scores to individual training examples. This prevalent additive assumption fundamentally fails to capture critical subset dynamics, including data redundancy and complementary coverage. In this work, we reframe attribution as subset-level counterfactual utility prediction and introduce GRASP, an interaction-aware surrogate. Grounded in a theoretical smoothness lower bound, GRASP explicitly models subset interactions through a quadratic geometric penalty. To achieve pretraining-scale efficiency without relying on hidden oracle tuning, we couple low-dimensional feature sketches with a strictly finite lower-confidence bound selection protocol. Extensive subset-retraining evaluations demonstrate that GRASP decisively outperforms existing scalable baselines. It more than doubles the task-level rank correlation for counterfactual subset fidelity while reducing upfront artifact construction costs by nearly an order of magnitude. Downstream diagnostics further show that this scoring mechanism transfers to language model curation and cross-domain vision selection, establishing a robust foundation for optimizing massive pretraining corpora.

Table reasoning remains challenging for large language models (LLMs), particularly in tasks that require multi-step inference over long and structured tables. Existing approaches predominantly rely on single-direction reasoning, which limits their ability to explore alternative hypotheses across tasks. In this work, we propose CRAFT, a unified Counterfactual Reasoning Framework that reformulates Tabular question answering and fact verification into a general bidirectional verification process. Our method explicitly constructs both declarative statements and their counterfactual variants. Evidence is then extracted from reasoning along both the original and counterfactual paths, and integrated via a weighted mechanism to arrive at the final answer. Experimental results show that our approach consistently surpasses representative baselines on table reasoning datasets such as WikiTQ and TabFact, achieving especially large improvements on complex question answering. Our framework also significantly mitigates performance gaps between different backbone LLMs. This indicates that counterfactual reasoning effectively overcomes the limitations of single-direction inference, guiding LLMs toward more discerning reasoning and establishing a more principled paradigm for structured reasoning tasks. Our code will be made publicly available upon acceptance.

Large language models are increasingly used to simulate social media users and infer how individuals may respond to online discussions. However, it remains unclear whether these simulations reflect precise user-specific beliefs or whether they are highly sensitive to semantically independent changes in conversational contexts. In this work, we study counterfactual context revision as a framework for auditing LLM-based stance simulation. Given an original online conversation, we first infer a target user's stance toward a specific topic. We then apply controlled revision strategies to the conversational context and simulate the user's stance again under the revised context. We compare text-only revision strategies with a multimodal one that incorporates meme-based context and evaluate two main effectiveness metrics, i.e., average directional stance shift and stance transition rate. The results reveal effective and robust stance transitions in both text-only and multimodal strategies across different polarization-preference mechanisms. Our study contributes an evaluation framework for understanding the context sensitivity of LLM-based stance simulation (https://github.com/STARResearchLab/StanceShift). More broadly, it highlights both the promise and risk of using LLMs as proxies for social media users in social simulation.

Machine learning is increasingly employed for the evaluation of football tactics. However, existing approaches focus on characterising historical actions or analyst-specified counterfactual scenarios. In this work, we seek to go beyond the imitation of historically observed patterns towards discovering new generalisable player configurations and strategies. To tackle this, we focus on optimising corner kick routines, and formulate a decision-making problem in which a central policy makes adjustments to attacking player positions and velocities to maximise first contact shot probability. Unlike classic optimisation that solves for isolated setups, we contribute a reinforcement learning architecture operating on graph-structured data that yields a general policy for adjusting arbitrary starting player positions. Evaluated on over 3,000 Premier League corners, our approach strongly outperforms baseline optimisation techniques under matched inference budgets. Our results suggest that graph reinforcement learning can shift set-piece analysis from historical evaluation and imitation towards reward-driven tactical discovery.

Counterfactuals are typically used in high-stakes decision areas to explain a machine learning model by showing how changes to the user profiles result in the desired outcome. However, explaining the model's decisions through counterfactuals can also be exploited by an adversary to conduct privacy attacks against the model or its training data. Drawing on the analogy that counterfactuals provide realistic substitutes for real training data, similar to synthetic data, we demonstrate in this paper how it is possible to successfully perform privacy attacks on counterfactuals by drawing on the attacks developed against synthetic data. More precisely, we investigate the effectiveness of the membership inference attacks designed for synthetic data on various types of counterfactuals. Additionally, while existing membership inference attacks against counterfactuals usually require to be able to query the model, we show how it is possible to perform successful membership inference attacks using only a set of counterfactuals, with no access to the model from which they are generated. Our results demonstrate that model developers should be more cautious when releasing counterfactuals to various users, as it can lead to a privacy breach.

Causal graphs provide a high-level language for making mechanisms transparent. Recent work uses Large Language Models (LLMs) to recover causal graphs of external-world processes. Instead, in this paper, we use causal graphs to model LLM inference itself, providing stakeholders with a transparent view of how the model perceives and organizes high-level concepts to produce a prediction. We propose a four-phase method for constructing such graphs. Given a target LLM and a set of textual examples, our method discovers class-discriminative, human-interpretable concepts and maps each input to LLM-perceived concept states. We then introduce an MCMC-inspired counterfactual augmentation procedure that expands the sparse observational data through chains of counterfactuals. This enables stable causal discovery with $σ$-CG, yielding informative, interpretable graphs. We apply our method to three LLMs across disease diagnosis, sentiment analysis, and LLM-as-a-judge classification tasks. We evaluate the learned graphs for predictive fidelity and structural stability, and the MCMC-inspired augmentation for convergence and downstream utility. Our results show that the discovered causal graphs capture meaningful dependencies consistent with LLMs' reasoning. Together, this paper provides a foundation for concept-level explainability of LLMs.

Handling toxic retrieval in text-to-audio systems is challenging due to contextual dependencies. Existing strategies (e.g., rephrasing, summarization) risk altering intent or omitting details. We propose a post hoc causal debiasing framework with a sentiment-controlled mediator to preserve semantic relevance while suppressing harmful speech. Our approach is model-agnostic and integrates seamlessly with existing retrieval pipelines. We introduce two variants: Forgive, which re-ranks and filters toxic audio via logit adjustment, and Forget, which generates counterfactual toxic prompts to mitigate harmful retrievals. Experiments show consistent toxicity reduction with minimal loss in retrieval accuracy, improving both safety and reliability.

Longitudinal treatment decisions from multivariate time-series data require predicting potential outcomes under future treatment sequences in the presence of time-varying confounding, heterogeneous patient dynamics, and limited domain-specific data. Existing longitudinal causal estimators typically address this problem by training a new model for each cohort or simulator. We introduce Causal Longitudinal Prior-Fitted Networks (CausalLongPFN), a prior-fitted network for time-series causal inference in longitudinal treatment-response data and zero-shot in-context counterfactual outcome prediction. The model is pretrained entirely on synthetic episodes sampled from a broad prior over temporal structural causal models, exposing it to treatment-confounder feedback, latent heterogeneity, nonlinear state evolution, delayed effects, and cumulative treatment responses. At test time, CausalLongPFN remains frozen and is used zero-shot: it conditions on support trajectories, a query history, and a planned future treatment sequence, and returns a predictive distribution over future outcomes without gradient updates or propensity-model fitting. Multi-step predictions are obtained by recursively applying the one-step predictor under the specified treatment sequence. We evaluate the model on branchable cancer, HIV, and warfarin benchmarks with ground-truth counterfactual labels, and on factual-only rolling-origin prediction in MIMIC-III ICU trajectories. CausalLongPFN is competitive with domain-trained longitudinal baselines on counterfactual benchmarks and performs strongly on factual MIMIC-III prediction, suggesting that broad synthetic causal pretraining can provide a frozen, amortized alternative for zero-shot longitudinal treatment-response prediction when repeated domain-specific training is costly or impractical.

Deep learning has enabled significant advances in time-series causal inference, yet progress remains constrained by the lack of realistic benchmarks with observable counterfactual outcomes. Existing datasets either rely on real-world observations without ground-truth counterfactuals or on simplified simulations that fail to capture complex causal dynamics. To address this gap, we develop a large-scale benchmark for counterfactual prediction in epidemic time series under dynamic interventions. Unlike existing benchmarks, it supports static and time-varying treatments, as well as both single-policy and multi-policy intervention settings, enabling evaluation of causal inference methods across a broad range of causal inference scenarios. Leveraging a calibrated agent-based model grounded in real-world demographic, mobility, epidemiological, and policy data, we generate realistic counterfactual trajectories across more than 150 U.S. counties. Using this benchmark, we evaluate widely used and state-of-the-art causal inference methods, revealing substantial performance differences and highlighting the challenges of realistic time-series causal reasoning.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards improves reasoning and tool use, yet long-horizon language agents still learn unsupported evidence chains, belief drift, and shortcut actions that satisfy terminal checks. Existing process rewards are mostly correlational: they reward retrieval-, reflection-, or verification-like steps without estimating whether the step contributes to final verified success under a specified intervention. We propose CVT-RL, a constrained policy-gradient algorithm with dense verifiable rewards, intervention-validity gating, and a policy-conditioned counterfactual contribution (PCCC) estimator. Deletion, semantic substitution, evidence substitution, and tool-output perturbation define separate controlled interventions; continuations are sampled from a frozen reference policy, and a selection-adjusted doubly robust estimator augments the advantage. Belief control uses only prefix-observable labels, while an augmented Lagrangian constrains unsupported claims, skipped verification, tool tampering, and unsafe calls. On long-context QA, ALFWorld, ScienceWorld, and web/tool tasks, CVT-RL improves average task success from 71.8% for compute-matched non-causal RL and 75.4% for an information-matched counterfactual-process baseline to 78.9%, improves evidence F1 from 78.9 to 82.8 over the information-matched baseline, and reduces measured hacking from 7.2% to 3.9%. Independent human audit estimates 4.6% hacking for CVT-RL versus 8.1% for the information-matched baseline, and adaptive detector-evasion attacks raise hacking only to 7.1%. Stratified bootstrap and mixed-effects tests give p<0.01 after Holm correction for all primary metrics. Carefully scoped counterfactual credit, paired with validity gating, diagnostics, and verifiable constraints, provides a reproducible route toward more reliable long-horizon RL for language agents.

Counterfactual explanations seek small, semantically meaningful changes to an input that alter a model's prediction, and are widely used to interpret and audit machine learning systems. In modern vision, language, and multimodal systems, pretrained encoders map inputs to representation spaces, and downstream classifier heads impose decision boundaries within those spaces. As a result, the feasibility and distance of nearby counterfactuals depend on boundary placement relative to the data. Yet models with similar predictive performance can differ substantially in whether such changes are achievable and how far representations must move. This work examines this variation using a standardized local search probe across several pretrained encoders and linear classifier heads. Results show that despite similar predictive performance, models differ substantially in their counterfactual behavior. Under fixed representations, varying only the classifier head alters counterfactual outcomes while leaving predictive performance largely unchanged. This variation is explained by the interaction of decision-boundary proximity and local data support, which jointly determine whether prediction changes are both feasible and lie in regions supported by the data, and can also improve counterfactual search within fixed models. Together, these findings identify counterfactual behavior as a distinct dimension beyond predictive performance and show that it can be altered without changing accuracy, with implications for model selection, robustness, and the reliability of counterfactual methods.

Inverse adversarial training leverages high-confidence predictions to stabilize robust learning, yet we uncover a critical paradox: high confidence often stems from overfitting to non-causal background correlations rather than intrinsic object semantics. Our investigation reveals that visual context functions as a dual-natured signal, serving as either a necessary supportive prior or a spurious confounder. This insight renders existing blind suppression strategies flawed, as they inevitably lead to severe Feature Loss. To resolve this, we propose High-Confidence Causally Aligned Training (HICAT), a unified framework that establishes a Semantic Equilibrium. Operating on a ``Measure-Debias-Align'' pipeline, HICAT integrates a Learnable Background-Bias Estimator (LBBE) to adaptively diagnose context utility. Guided by this diagnosis, an Adaptive Debiasing mechanism performs surgical logit rectification, complemented by a geometrically grounded Foreground Logit Orthogonal Enhancement (FLOE) loss to enforce rigorous feature disentanglement. Extensive experiments on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and ImageNet-1K demonstrate that HICAT consistently improves over matched baselines across diverse architectures (CNNs and ViTs) while significantly reducing the robust generalization gap.

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) show strong visualization interpretation, yet it is unclear whether their responses reflect genuine reasoning over visual evidence or factual priors learned during training. Current evaluations mix these two sources, obscuring when correct visual interpretation is overridden by memorized facts. We present a framework that isolates visual correctness from factual correctness, revealing validity limitations in existing visualization literacy assessments. Across three experiments with 15 state-of-the-art LVLMs: (1) several models reach human-level performance on standard tests (VLAT), but this may reflect factual recall rather than visual understanding, while randomized-data tests (reVLAT) underestimate literacy when correct visual interpretation is superseded by factual priors. (2) Using our Counterfactual Visualization Literacy Assessment Test (CVLAT) with capability-normalized arbitration metrics, we classify models by the sign of their visual-factual reliance index (VFRI), revealing a visualization-oriented majority and a factual knowledge-oriented minority, though several near-zero cases warrant caution. A human baseline (N=30) on the same counterfactual items confirms that people overwhelmingly follow the chart under conflict, providing a human reference point. (3) Prompt-based intervention can shift prioritization, but its effectiveness is highly model-dependent and direction-asymmetric, and high chart-reading capability does not predict prompt-controllability. Overall, high visualization accuracy is not sufficient evidence of faithful visual reasoning: reliable integration into visual analytics requires evaluating not only visualization literacy but also how models arbitrate between visual evidence and factual priors when the two diverge. Benchmark and code: https://github.com/JaeyoungKim-HCIL/CVLAT

Live streaming has emerged as a primary medium for social interaction and digital commerce, yet it is increasingly plagued by sophisticated risks. A fundamental challenge in this domain is \emph{tactical out-of-distribution (OOD) shift}: while malicious actors maintain stable underlying objectives, they continuously redesign narrative packaging to evade detection. Such adversarial shifts expose critical limitations of existing OOD generalization paradigms, whose assumptions are difficult to satisfy in the presence of tightly coupled intent-tactic evolution and ill-defined raw-level counterfactuals. In this paper, we tackle this issue from a \emph{latent causal} perspective and propose \underline{L}atent-\underline{P}redictive \underline{C}ounterfactual \underline{D}ecoupling~(LPCD), a plug-in framework for robust live streaming risk assessment. LPCD enables counterfactual reasoning under adversarial tactical re-packaging by modeling intent and narrative variation at the latent level, and enforces \emph{latent counterfactual consistency} to anchor risk prediction on causally stable malicious intent. At inference time, LPCD applies a lightweight, parameter-free calibration to further mitigate tactic-induced distribution shifts. Extensive experiments on large-scale industrial datasets and online production traffic demonstrate that LPCD consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, validating its effectiveness in moderating evolving adversarial risks in real-world live streaming. The project page is available at https://qiaoyran.github.io/LiveStreamingRiskAssessment/.

Video world models are increasingly used in robotic manipulation, yet existing benchmarks mostly evaluate them under valid, feasible, and safe instructions. We introduce RoboTrustBench, a benchmark for evaluating the trustworthiness of video world models under four scenarios: Normal, Constraint-Sensitive, Counterfactual, and Adversarial. Built from real-world DROID episodes, RoboTrustBench contains 1,207 expert-validated instruction-image pairs and a six-dimensional evaluation protocol with 13 fine-grained criteria. Evaluating seven representative video world models with human and MLLM assessment, we find that current models often generate visually coherent videos, but struggle with constraint reasoning, counterfactual grounding, physical interaction, and unsafe-instruction suppression. These results show that visual quality and surface-level instruction following are insufficient for trustworthy robotic video world modeling.

Estimating the causal effect of time-varying treatments on survival outcomes in large observational studies is computationally demanding, particularly when outcomes are rare. While g-formula-based methods such as the iterative conditional expectation (ICE) estimator provide a principled framework for longitudinal causal inference, they become computationally expensive, especially when bootstrap-based variance estimation is required. In addition, outcome rarity at each time point induces severe class imbalance, leading to instability and convergence issues in logistic regression and related models. To address these challenges, we propose a principled subsampling and reweighting strategy for longitudinal survival data that can be applied to a range of existing causal effect estimators in this setting, including the ICE estimator. The proposed method substantially reduces computational burden while preserving consistency and improving estimation stability in rare-outcome settings. We evaluate the method through simulations and validate it using a large-scale EHR cohort study on social and behavioral determinants of health (SBDH) and suicide risk, demonstrating its effectiveness for modeling rare outcomes in longitudinal data.

Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and subjective cognitive decline (SCD) are closely associated with the early Alzheimer's disease continuum, where accurate and explainable diagnosis is important for early risk assessment and intervention. Existing connectome-based deep learning models can improve classification performance but often provide limited insight into disease-related functional and structural connectivity changes. This paper proposes an atlas-knowledge-guided Generative Counterfactual Attention-guided Network (GCAN) for explainable cognitive decline diagnosis using multimodal brain connectomes. GCAN formulates diagnosis as a source-to-target counterfactual generation problem, where target-label connectomes are generated from source-label inputs and their differences are used to construct counterfactual attention maps. To preserve connectome topology, an Atlas-aware Bidirectional Transformer (AABT) performs network-level token encoding and decoding under brain-atlas constraints. The framework is further extended from functional connectivity (FC) to joint functional and structural connectivity (SC) modeling, enabling counterfactual analysis of complementary functional reorganization and structural topology changes. Experiments on hospital-collected and ADNI datasets show that GCAN achieves competitive performance across HC vs. SCD, HC vs. MCI, and SCD vs. MCI classification tasks. Visualization, circular connectome analysis, CAM-based comparison, ablation studies, and confidence interval analysis further support the interpretability and reliability of the proposed framework. Modality-specific FC and SC pre-trained classifiers are used to provide target-state priors for counterfactual generation while being separated from the downstream diagnostic classifier to prevent data leakage.

Natural-language explanations are often treated as a unified interface for understanding model behavior, but different explanation sources may support simulation in different ways. This paper compares two families of explanations for question answering models: verbalized feature attributions and self-generated rationales. We evaluate them under a shared counterfactual simulation setting, using an LLM judge as predictor and measuring whether it can better predict a model's answers to follow-up questions when given its explanation. Across multiple instruction-tuned models, we analyze how explanation source, verbalization strategy, and feature granularity affect the simulatability of explanations. Our results show that explanation format and granularity affect simulatability: attribution-based explanations and self-generated rationales differ in how much they improve counterfactual prediction, with effects that vary across models and formats.

Medical visual question answering requires models to ground their responses in image evidence, because visually unsupported answers can mislead downstream interpretation. However, many medical VQA questions are generic, template-like, or highly similar in form, which can encourage models to learn question-answer shortcuts instead of image-dependent reasoning and thereby increase the risk of hallucinated responses. We propose Ask4VG, a label-free pilot framework for risk-aware question selection. Ask4VG estimates question-induced hallucination risk through counterfactual visual probing: the same question is asked under the original image, a perturbed image, a blank image, and a mismatched image, and the resulting answer relations are converted into weak supervision for a counterfactual risk estimator. The learned estimator then reranks candidate question rewrites to favor intent-preserving questions that are less invariant to missing or mismatched visual evidence before final answer generation. On VQA-RAD with Qwen2-VL-2B-Instruct, prompt-only rewriting increases counterfactual risk, whereas predicted-risk reranking reduces held-out risk from 0.658 to 0.623 and improves exact accuracy from 0.337 to 0.356. A 300-sample PMC-VQA external check shows the same direction of risk reduction with a small accuracy gain. These results suggest that question selection is a promising complement to response-level hallucination mitigation for reliable medical VQA.

Online link recommendation on evolving graphs is performative: by choosing which candidate links to show users, the system changes which links form and what feedback it later observes. Consequently, fairness estimates from logged outcomes can be misleading and may drift after deployment when the recommendation policy is updated. We introduce COPF (Counterfactual Online Performative Fairness), a decision-layer framework for deployment-stable fairness monitoring and control in online link recommendation. COPF (i) defines group-level opportunity gaps over exposure (shown vs. not shown) counterfactuals, (ii) makes them estimable by explicit exploration and by logging the probability (propensity) that each candidate is shown, and (iii) audits and controls fairness using residual outcome indistinguishability (OI) over a configurable auditor family with graph-aware doubly robust (GA-DR) estimators. We provide a noisy transfer theorem showing that Residual-OI on estimated GA-DR residuals implies bounds on exposure-counterfactual group gaps under temporal mixing and bounded local interference, and we instantiate an online multicalibration auditor together with a primal-dual controller. Experiments on two TGB streams and a controlled synthetic bipartite stream show that COPF reduces worst-case spikes in exposure-counterfactual group disparities with modest impact on ranking utility. Our code is available at https://github.com/lsnnnnnnnn/COPF.

Modifying an attribute in tabular data often introduces an unnatural instance by breaking its relationships with other attributes. The modified instance must be both natural and minimally changed from the original instance. This paper addresses the challenge of generating such a modified instance. We identify key limitations in existing approaches: generative models either don't support instance-level attribute editing or, in the case of methods like CVAE, retain attribute information in the latent space, leading to unnecessary modifications. To solve this, we propose TabChange, an approach that analyzes the relationship between the attribute of interest and other attributes in the dataset. If the relationship is weak, it simply flips the attribute; if it is strong, it uses an adversarial framework that removes information about the attribute in the latent space representation. This removal enables precise modifications, making only the necessary adjustments to maintain naturalness. Our experiments across seven datasets show that TabChange generates counterfactuals in attributes that are comparable in naturalness and are more proximal to their original instances. This leads to a higher number of valid counterfactuals and a lower number of invalid counterfactuals compared to the baselines.

Two-sample testing is a fundamental tool for detecting distributional differences across scientific domains, but classical tests (including kernel-based tests) can be ineffective on high-dimensional structured data such as images. Recent deep two-sample tests improve sensitivity in these settings by learning informative representations, yet they provide limited insight into which data features drive rejection of the null hypothesis $H_0$. To address this issue, we propose a counterfactual explanation framework for deep two-sample testing that generates sample-level edits moving observations from a source group toward a target group while explicitly reducing the discrepancy measured by the test. Our method combines a diffusion autoencoder with a pretrained deep two-sample test model and optimizes a maximum mean discrepancy (MMD) objective in the test model's representation space to produce plausible counterfactuals. We quantify distribution-level effects through changes in the test statistic and the resulting two-sample p-values. We evaluate the method on synthetic 2D shape datasets and two MRI cohorts. Across both settings, the counterfactual transformations consistently increase p-values relative to the original samples, indicating that the edited source set becomes statistically closer to the target distribution under the test. We measure minimality using LPIPS to ensure the counterfactuals remain close to the original samples. The resulting edits provide interpretable evidence of the features associated with the detected group differences. On MRI, the localized changes are consistent with known anatomical differences between cohorts.

Counterfactual explanations (CEs) are essential for actionable recourse, yet their reliability is often compromised in low-density regions, where classifiers exhibit high variance. Unlike existing methods that rely on expensive ensemble intersections to define stability, we propose \textit{DensityFlow}, a generative framework that constructs robust CEs by adhering to the high-confidence data manifold. Specifically, we model the counterfactual generation as continuous-time dynamics parameterized by Neural ODE, guided by a differentiable density score to actively avoid uncertain, low-density areas. This density score is learned via Noise Contrastive Estimation, effectively leveraging a $(K{+}1)$-way discriminator to estimate density ratios. For black-box settings, we introduce a local proxy distillation mechanism that aligns a lightweight surrogate with the target model strictly within the trajectory of CE generation, enabling efficient gradient-based optimization with minimal queries. Experiments demonstrate that \textit{DensityFlow} achieves superior validity under model multiplicity while significantly reducing query costs compared to ensemble-based baselines. Our implementation is available at https://github.com/G-AILab/DensityFlow.

Many theories of decision making -- planning, reinforcement learning, causal intervention, online learning, and game-theoretic equilibrium -- turn local information into globally coherent behavior. This paper proposes a common categorical formulation: a Universal Decision Learner (UDL) extends a partially specified decision functor from observed contexts to new contexts by a pair of universal constructions. Left Kan extensions express rollout, aggregation, and candidate generation; right Kan extensions express consistency, constraint satisfaction, and fixed-point semantics. The central claim is not that every decision problem has the same algorithm, but that many decision formalisms instantiate the same universal problem: extend local behavioral data canonically, then characterize the globally coherent extensions. We give the abstract UDL construction, prove its universal comparison property, define Kan-invariant behavioral equivalence and minimal abstractions, and show how Bellman equations, planning recursions, causal interventions, online regret, and equilibria arise as special cases. The supplementary material develops the reinforcement-learning specialization in more detail.

Multi-agent LLM systems often treat agreement as evidence: when many agents in a panel give the same answer, that answer is assumed to be more reliable. We show that this assumption can fail after agents communicate. Communication can induce correlated failures and false consensus, so the same vote share may reflect reliable agreement in one topology but over-confidence in another. We propose CAGE-CAL, a counterfactual agent-graph calibration framework for multi-agent LLMs. For each query, CAGE-CAL compares an observed post-communication agent graph with a matched counterfactual no-communication graph, capturing both pairwise failure correlations and group-level dependencies. Rather than simply counting how many agents agree, CAGE-CAL estimates the counterfactual shift between observed and no-communication dependence, and calibrates confidence accordingly. Across five benchmarks, CAGE-CAL improves reliability discrimination with competitive ECE, and its calibrated confidence further improves topology selection over the best fixed-topology strategy.

Two clinical AI systems can score nearly identically on coverage-based rubrics yet behave radically differently when their patient inputs change: one updates its recommendations to match the new clinical signal, while the other produces the same output regardless. We introduce the Causal Sensitivity Score (CSS), a pre-registered interventional metric that mutates oncology tumor-board cases along five clinically meaningful dimensions - biomarker flips, prior-treatment failures, biomarker removals, surgery-status changes, and stage perturbations - and scores whether each model updates its recommendations in the pre-registered correct direction using a {0, 0.5, 1.0} scale. Benchmarked against the Consensus Match Score (CMS), a coverage-based weighted recall metric, six frontier models from three labs evaluated in single-shot inference across 224 cases rank in nearly opposite orders: all six models change rank, the CMS-worst model becomes CSS-best, and one upper-mid CMS model ranks last on CSS. We further surface a universal safety blind spot: every frontier model fails on surgery-status interventions (at most 17.2% CSS on Family D), a finding CMS does not expose. The metric also transfers to tool-using agents: in a ReAct-style experiment, tool use improves CSS for five of six models (+2.5 to +20.3 percentage points), yet the lowest-CSS model retrieves the same chart sections and still fails to update its recommendations - revealing a structural responsiveness deficit visible only under counterfactual evaluation. Cross-judge replication and three-rater medical-professional validation confirm the aggregate findings. Interventional pre-registered metrics like CSS complement coverage-based evaluation for clinical AI agents: they capture responsiveness that coverage metrics miss and offer a candidate dense reward signal for future agentic RL systems.

Vision-language reinforcement learning has recently shown strong target-present localization for camouflaged object detection (COD). Yet localization is only one side of the decision: when the agent faces an ordinary image with no camouflaged target, will it still claim that a camouflaged object exists? Standard COD training and evaluation data are positive-only, so agents optimized under this setting can acquire an over-detect bias, a task-specific form of object hallucination that standard COD evaluation leaves unmeasured. To quantify this target-absent behavior, we construct Counterfactual COD (CF-COD), a paired benchmark that removes the camouflaged target from each held-out COD evaluation image while preserving a plausible background. CF-COD evaluates whether a model detects the target on the original image and abstains on the target-absent counterfactual, summarized by Pair Accuracy (PA). We further introduce CFCamo, a paired counterfactual framework for COD with abstention. For training, CFCamo optimizes a Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct agent with Counterfactual Sequence Policy Optimization (CSPO), which samples paired original-counterfactual rollouts and uses a Counterfactual Paired Reward (CPR) to couple original-image detection with counterfactual abstention. On CAMO-test, CFCamo improves S_alpha by +3.7 pp over the prior RL-based COD baseline; across CF-COD, it reaches 80.0-90.8% PA. Ablations show that removing counterfactual coupling reduces PA to 1.4-5.2% despite strong target-present COD scores, showing that target-present evaluation alone does not characterize detect-or-abstain behavior. Overall, these results indicate that CFCamo improves COD agents by coupling target-present detection with target-absent abstention, rather than merely strengthening target-present localization. Code and data are available at https://github.com/suhang2000/CFCamo.

Clustering is an unsupervised technique for grouping data points by similarity. While explainability methods exist for supervised machine learning, they are not directly applicable to clustering, making it challenging to understand cluster assignments. This interpretability gap is particularly evident in the popular density-based method DBSCAN, which assigns points as inliers (cluster members in dense regions) or outliers (noise points in sparse regions). DBSCAN does not provide insight into why a particular point receives its assignment or whether its assignment is robust to small changes in the data. To address the lack of explainability, we introduce ExDBSCAN, a density-aware, post-hoc explanation method. ExDBSCAN offers actionable counterfactual explanations, with theoretical guarantees for validity. It generates multiple counterfactuals using a density connected weighted graph, adopting a physics-inspired model that repels counterfactual candidates from one another (diversity), while pulling them toward the instance to explain (proximity). Empirical evaluation on 30 tabular datasets comparing against four baselines shows that ExDBSCAN outperforms all baselines while attaining perfect validity and retrieving diverse, proximal counterfactuals.

With the rapid advancement of multimodal large language models (MLLMs), models have demonstrated increasingly powerful multimodal capabilities. However, whether MLLMs trained through statistical learning can truly understand the causal relationships underlying the real world remains a key research question. In recent years, numerous multimodal causal reasoning datasets have been proposed. Nevertheless, these datasets are either limited in scale or constructed from synthetic images and videos, cartoon-based content, or other non-realistic multimodal sources. To address these limitations, we collect real-world videos and construct DMC-CF-Static, a large-scale benchmark for multimodal causal counterfactual reasoning. Furthermore, to mitigate issues such as data contamination in traditional static evaluation, we represent causal events using causal graphs and propose the Dynamic Graph Intervention (DGI) framework to build the dynamic evaluation benchmark DMC-CF-Dynamic from DMC-CF-Static. Experimental results on the overall DMC-CF, which includes both static and dynamic evaluation benchmarks, demonstrate that the multimodal causal reasoning capabilities of current multimodal large language models in real-world scenarios still require substantial improvement.

Drawing on Ullmann-Margalit's concept of opting (transformative, irrevocable, and shadowed by foreclosed alternatives), we show that current AI systems raise a profound ethical problem that existing AI ethics has not fully captured: the illusion of opting, in which persons and groups encounter the deceptive appearance of meaningful consequential choice while the agency needed to become genuinely capable of choosing is weakened. Against approaches that treat AI primarily as an optimizer of already given ends, we argue that AI systems should be evaluated by whether they protect and cultivate meta-capacity against the illusion of opting: the socially and institutionally scaffolded agentive capacity through which means and ends can be formed, contested, revised, and owned. This reframing is especially urgent for disadvantaged populations, who are least able to absorb the costs of the illusion of opting when AI-mediated pathways misdirect behavior and action. We propose three normative imperatives for AI-mediated consequential decisions: existential honesty, which acknowledges the limits of prediction; ecological rationality, which situates guidance within heterogeneous lived ecologies; and counterfactual reparation, which acknowledges and repairs foreclosed alternatives when AI-mediated decision-making pathways fail.

Real-world user behavior rarely consists of isolated actions; instead, it often forms intent flows governed by spatiotemporal dependencies. To provide integrated service recommendations, we focus on the task of Generative Spatiotemporal Intent Sequence Recommendation (GSISR), which aims to generate intent sequences that are logically coherent and physically executable within complex spatiotemporal contexts. While LLMs offer strong reasoning potential for GSISR, direct industrial deployment is limited by high inference latency and context-mismatched or physically infeasible plans. To address these challenges, we propose a generative framework, GPlan, that internalizes LLM reasoning into lightweight models through two components. First, to enable reasoning under strict latency constraints, we introduce Progressive Implicit CoT Distillation, which compresses explicit reasoning processes into reserved latent tokens, allowing small models to inherit complex planning logic without generating long reasoning text. Second, to address the disconnect between general knowledge and real-world constraints, we design Spatiotemporal Counterfactual DPO. By aligning the model with counterfactual context-plan pairs, we improve sensitivity to spatiotemporal context and reduce context-mismatched plans. Offline experiments and online A/B testing demonstrate that our approach improves sequence coherence and context responsiveness. Our implementation and the anonymized GSISR dataset are available at https://github.com/alibaba/GPlan.