Recent progress in vision-language segmentation has significantly advanced grounded visual understanding. However, these models often exhibit hallucinations by producing segmentation masks for objects not grounded in the image content or by incorrectly labeling irrelevant regions. Existing evaluation protocols for segmentation hallucination primarily focus on label or textual hallucinations without manipulating the visual context, limiting their capacity to diagnose critical failures. In response, we introduce HalluSegBench, the first benchmark specifically designed to evaluate hallucinations in visual grounding through the lens of counterfactual visual reasoning. Our benchmark consists of a novel dataset of 1340 counterfactual instance pairs spanning 281 unique object classes, and a set of newly introduced metrics that quantify hallucination sensitivity under visually coherent scene edits. Experiments on HalluSegBench with state-of-the-art vision-language segmentation models reveal that vision-driven hallucinations are significantly more prevalent than label-driven ones, with models often persisting in false segmentation, highlighting the need for counterfactual reasoning to diagnose grounding fidelity.
This tutorial provides a concise introduction to modern causal modeling by integrating potential outcomes and graphical methods. We motivate causal questions such as counterfactual reasoning under interventions and define binary treatments and potential outcomes. We discuss causal effect measures-including average treatment effects on the treated and on the untreated-and choices of effect scales for binary outcomes. We derive identification in randomized experiments under exchangeability and consistency, and extend to stratification and blocking designs. We present inverse probability weighting with propensity score estimation and robust inference via sandwich estimators. Finally, we introduce causal graphs, d-separation, the backdoor criterion, single-world intervention graphs, and structural equation models, showing how graphical and potential-outcome approaches complement each other. Emphasis is placed on clear notation, intuitive explanations, and practical examples for applied researchers.
The rapid evolution of artificial intelligence has led to expectations of transformative scientific discovery, yet current systems remain fundamentally limited by their operational architectures, brittle reasoning mechanisms, and their separation from experimental reality. Building on earlier work, we contend that progress in AI-driven science now depends on closing three fundamental gaps -- the abstraction gap, the reasoning gap, and the reality gap -- rather than on model size/data/test time compute. Scientific reasoning demands internal representations that support simulation of actions and response, causal structures that distinguish correlation from mechanism, and continuous calibration. We define active inference AI systems for scientific discovery as those that (i) maintain long-lived research memories grounded in causal self-supervised foundation models, (ii) symbolic or neuro-symbolic planners equipped with Bayesian guardrails, (iii) grow persistent knowledge graphs where thinking generates novel conceptual nodes, reasoning establishes causal edges, and real-world interaction prunes false connections while strengthening verified pathways, and (iv) refine their internal representations through closed-loop interaction with both high-fidelity simulators and automated laboratories - an operational loop where mental simulation guides action and empirical surprise reshapes understanding. In essence, we outline an architecture where discovery arises from the interplay between internal models that enable counterfactual reasoning and external validation that grounds hypotheses in reality. It is also argued that the inherent ambiguity in feedback from simulations and experiments, and underlying uncertainties makes human judgment indispensable, not as a temporary scaffold but as a permanent architectural component.
Causal and temporal reasoning about video dynamics is a challenging problem. While neuro-symbolic models that combine symbolic reasoning with neural-based perception and prediction have shown promise, they exhibit limitations, especially in answering counterfactual questions. This paper introduces a method to enhance a neuro-symbolic model for counterfactual reasoning, leveraging symbolic reasoning about causal relations among events. We define the notion of a causal graph to represent such relations and use Answer Set Programming (ASP), a declarative logic programming method, to find how to coordinate perception and simulation modules. We validate the effectiveness of our approach on two benchmarks, CLEVRER and CRAFT. Our enhancement achieves state-of-the-art performance on the CLEVRER challenge, significantly outperforming existing models. In the case of the CRAFT benchmark, we leverage a large pre-trained language model, such as GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, as a proxy for a dynamics simulator. Our findings show that this method can further improve its performance on counterfactual questions by providing alternative prompts instructed by symbolic causal reasoning.
Recent breakthroughs in Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to a qualitative leap in artificial intelligence' s performance on reasoning tasks, particularly demonstrating remarkable capabilities in mathematical, symbolic, and commonsense reasoning. However, as a critical component of advanced human cognition, strategic reasoning, i.e., the ability to assess multi-agent behaviors in dynamic environments, formulate action plans, and adapt strategies, has yet to be systematically evaluated or modeled. To address this gap, this paper introduces WGSR-Bench, the first strategy reasoning benchmark for LLMs using wargame as its evaluation environment. Wargame, a quintessential high-complexity strategic scenario, integrates environmental uncertainty, adversarial dynamics, and non-unique strategic choices, making it an effective testbed for assessing LLMs' capabilities in multi-agent decision-making, intent inference, and counterfactual reasoning. WGSR-Bench designs test samples around three core tasks, i.e., Environmental situation awareness, Opponent risk modeling and Policy generation, which serve as the core S-POE architecture, to systematically assess main abilities of strategic reasoning. Finally, an LLM-based wargame agent is designed to integrate these parts for a comprehensive strategy reasoning assessment. With WGSR-Bench, we hope to assess the strengths and limitations of state-of-the-art LLMs in game-theoretic strategic reasoning and to advance research in large model-driven strategic intelligence.
Counterfactual image generation presents significant challenges, including preserving identity, maintaining perceptual quality, and ensuring faithfulness to an underlying causal model. While existing auto-encoding frameworks admit semantic latent spaces which can be manipulated for causal control, they struggle with scalability and fidelity. Advancements in diffusion models present opportunities for improving counterfactual image editing, having demonstrated state-of-the-art visual quality, human-aligned perception and representation learning capabilities. Here, we present a suite of diffusion-based causal mechanisms, introducing the notions of spatial, semantic and dynamic abduction. We propose a general framework that integrates semantic representations into diffusion models through the lens of Pearlian causality to edit images via a counterfactual reasoning process. To our knowledge, this is the first work to consider high-level semantic identity preservation for diffusion counterfactuals and to demonstrate how semantic control enables principled trade-offs between faithful causal control and identity preservation.
Large-scale neural language models (LMs) exhibit remarkable performance in in-context learning: the ability to learn and reason the input context on the fly without parameter update. This work studies in-context counterfactual reasoning in language models, that is, to predict the consequences of changes under hypothetical scenarios. We focus on studying a well-defined synthetic setup: a linear regression task that requires noise abduction, where accurate prediction is based on inferring and copying the contextual noise from factual observations. We show that language models are capable of counterfactual reasoning in this controlled setup and provide insights that counterfactual reasoning for a broad class of functions can be reduced to a transformation on in-context observations; we find self-attention, model depth, and data diversity in pre-training drive performance in Transformers. More interestingly, our findings extend beyond regression tasks and show that Transformers can perform noise abduction on sequential data, providing preliminary evidence on the potential for counterfactual story generation. Our code is available under https://github.com/moXmiller/counterfactual-reasoning.git .
Video-based person re-identification (Re-ID) remains brittle in real-world deployments despite impressive benchmark performance. Most existing models rely on superficial correlations such as clothing, background, or lighting that fail to generalize across domains, viewpoints, and temporal variations. This survey examines the emerging role of causal reasoning as a principled alternative to traditional correlation-based approaches in video-based Re-ID. We provide a structured and critical analysis of methods that leverage structural causal models, interventions, and counterfactual reasoning to isolate identity-specific features from confounding factors. The survey is organized around a novel taxonomy of causal Re-ID methods that spans generative disentanglement, domain-invariant modeling, and causal transformers. We review current evaluation metrics and introduce causal-specific robustness measures. In addition, we assess practical challenges of scalability, fairness, interpretability, and privacy that must be addressed for real-world adoption. Finally, we identify open problems and outline future research directions that integrate causal modeling with efficient architectures and self-supervised learning. This survey aims to establish a coherent foundation for causal video-based person Re-ID and to catalyze the next phase of research in this rapidly evolving domain.
Counterfactual reasoning typically involves considering alternatives to actual events. While often applied to understand past events, a distinct form-forward counterfactual reasoning-focuses on anticipating plausible future developments. This type of reasoning is invaluable in dynamic financial markets, where anticipating market developments can powerfully unveil potential risks and opportunities for stakeholders, guiding their decision-making. However, performing this at scale is challenging due to the cognitive demands involved, underscoring the need for automated solutions. Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promise, but remain unexplored for this application. To address this gap, we introduce a novel benchmark, Fin-Force-FINancial FORward Counterfactual Evaluation. By curating financial news headlines and providing structured evaluation, Fin-Force supports LLM based forward counterfactual generation. This paves the way for scalable and automated solutions for exploring and anticipating future market developments, thereby providing structured insights for decision-making. Through experiments on Fin-Force, we evaluate state-of-the-art LLMs and counterfactual generation methods, analyzing their limitations and proposing insights for future research.
Causal world models are systems that can answer counterfactual questions about an environment of interest, i.e. predict how it would have evolved if an arbitrary subset of events had been realized differently. It requires understanding the underlying causes behind chains of events and conducting causal inference for arbitrary unseen distributions. So far, this task eludes foundation models, notably large language models (LLMs), which do not have demonstrated causal reasoning capabilities beyond the memorization of existing causal relationships. Furthermore, evaluating counterfactuals in real-world applications is challenging since only the factual world is observed, limiting evaluation to synthetic datasets. We address these problems by explicitly extracting and modeling causal relationships and propose the Causal Cartographer framework. First, we introduce a graph retrieval-augmented generation agent tasked to retrieve causal relationships from data. This approach allows us to construct a large network of real-world causal relationships that can serve as a repository of causal knowledge and build real-world counterfactuals. In addition, we create a counterfactual reasoning agent constrained by causal relationships to perform reliable step-by-step causal inference. We show that our approach can extract causal knowledge and improve the robustness of LLMs for causal reasoning tasks while reducing inference costs and spurious correlations.
This paper uncovers a critical yet overlooked phenomenon in multi-modal large language models (MLLMs): detrimental concept drift within chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning during non-stationary reinforcement fine-tuning (RFT), where reasoning token distributions evolve unpredictably, thereby introducing significant biases in final predictions. To address this, we are pioneers in establishing the theoretical bridge between concept drift theory and RFT processes by formalizing CoT's autoregressive token streams as non-stationary distributions undergoing arbitrary temporal shifts. Leveraging this framework, we propose a novel counterfact-aware RFT that systematically decouples beneficial distribution adaptation from harmful concept drift through concept graph-empowered LLM experts generating counterfactual reasoning trajectories. Our solution, Counterfactual Preference Optimization (CPO), enables stable RFT in non-stationary environments, particularly within the medical domain, through custom-tuning of counterfactual-aware preference alignment. Extensive experiments demonstrate our superior performance of robustness, generalization and coordination within RFT. Besides, we also contributed a large-scale dataset CXR-CounterFact (CCF), comprising 320,416 meticulously curated counterfactual reasoning trajectories derived from MIMIC-CXR. Our code and data are public.
Decision Transformers (DT) play a crucial role in modern reinforcement learning, leveraging offline datasets to achieve impressive results across various domains. However, DT requires high-quality, comprehensive data to perform optimally. In real-world applications, the lack of training data and the scarcity of optimal behaviours make training on offline datasets challenging, as suboptimal data can hinder performance. To address this, we propose the Counterfactual Reasoning Decision Transformer (CRDT), a novel framework inspired by counterfactual reasoning. CRDT enhances DT ability to reason beyond known data by generating and utilizing counterfactual experiences, enabling improved decision-making in unseen scenarios. Experiments across Atari and D4RL benchmarks, including scenarios with limited data and altered dynamics, demonstrate that CRDT outperforms conventional DT approaches. Additionally, reasoning counterfactually allows the DT agent to obtain stitching abilities, combining suboptimal trajectories, without architectural modifications. These results highlight the potential of counterfactual reasoning to enhance reinforcement learning agents' performance and generalization capabilities.
Decision making under abnormal conditions is a critical process that involves evaluating the current state and determining the optimal action to restore the system to a normal state at an acceptable cost. However, in such scenarios, existing decision-making frameworks highly rely on reinforcement learning or root cause analysis, resulting in them frequently neglecting the cost of the actions or failing to incorporate causal mechanisms adequately. By relaxing the existing causal decision framework to solve the necessary cause, we propose a minimum-cost causal decision (MiCCD) framework via counterfactual reasoning to address the above challenges. Emphasis is placed on making counterfactual reasoning processes identifiable in the presence of a large amount of mixed anomaly data, as well as finding the optimal intervention state in a continuous decision space. Specifically, it formulates a surrogate model based on causal graphs, using abnormal pattern clustering labels as supervisory signals. This enables the approximation of the structural causal model among the variables and lays a foundation for identifiable counterfactual reasoning. With the causal structure approximated, we then established an optimization model based on counterfactual estimation. The Sequential Least Squares Programming (SLSQP) algorithm is further employed to optimize intervention strategies while taking costs into account. Experimental evaluations on both synthetic and real-world datasets reveal that MiCCD outperforms conventional methods across multiple metrics, including F1-score, cost efficiency, and ranking quality(nDCG@k values), thus validating its efficacy and broad applicability.
Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have garnered significant attention for their strong visual-semantic understanding. Most existing chart benchmarks evaluate MLLMs' ability to parse information from charts to answer questions. However, they overlook the inherent output biases of MLLMs, where models rely on their parametric memory to answer questions rather than genuinely understanding the chart content. To address this limitation, we introduce a novel Chart Hypothetical Question Answering (HQA) task, which imposes assumptions on the same question to compel models to engage in counterfactual reasoning based on the chart content. Furthermore, we introduce HAI, a human-AI interactive data synthesis approach that leverages the efficient text-editing capabilities of LLMs alongside human expert knowledge to generate diverse and high-quality HQA data at a low cost. Using HAI, we construct Chart-HQA, a challenging benchmark synthesized from publicly available data sources. Evaluation results on 18 MLLMs of varying model sizes reveal that current models face significant generalization challenges and exhibit imbalanced reasoning performance on the HQA task.
This paper investigates $\sim_{\mathcal{L}_3}$-identifiability, a form of complete counterfactual identifiability within the Pearl Causal Hierarchy (PCH) framework, ensuring that all Structural Causal Models (SCMs) satisfying the given assumptions provide consistent answers to all causal questions. To simplify this problem, we introduce exogenous isomorphism and propose $\sim_{\mathrm{EI}}$-identifiability, reflecting the strength of model identifiability required for $\sim_{\mathcal{L}_3}$-identifiability. We explore sufficient assumptions for achieving $\sim_{\mathrm{EI}}$-identifiability in two special classes of SCMs: Bijective SCMs (BSCMs), based on counterfactual transport, and Triangular Monotonic SCMs (TM-SCMs), which extend $\sim_{\mathcal{L}_2}$-identifiability. Our results unify and generalize existing theories, providing theoretical guarantees for practical applications. Finally, we leverage neural TM-SCMs to address the consistency problem in counterfactual reasoning, with experiments validating both the effectiveness of our method and the correctness of the theory.
We study the complexity of satisfiability problems in probabilistic and causal reasoning. Given random variables $X_1, X_2,\ldots$ over finite domains, the basic terms are probabilities of propositional formulas over atomic events $X_i = x_i$, such as $P(X_1 = x_1)$ or $P(X_1 = x_1 \vee X_2 = x_2)$. The basic terms can be combined using addition (yielding linear terms) or multiplication (polynomial terms). The probabilistic satisfiability problem asks whether a joint probability distribution satisfies a Boolean combination of (in)equalities over such terms. Fagin et al. (1990) showed that for basic and linear terms, this problem is NP-complete, making it no harder than Boolean satisfiability, while Moss\'e et al. (2022) proved that for polynomial terms, it is complete for the existential theory of the reals. Pearl's Causal Hierarchy (PCH) extends the probabilistic setting with interventional and counterfactual reasoning, enriching the expressiveness of languages. However, Moss\'e et al. (2022) found that satisfiability complexity remains unchanged. Van der Zander et al. (2023) showed that introducing a marginalization operator to languages induces a significant increase in complexity. We extend this line of work by adding two new dimensions to the problem by constraining the models. First, we fix the graph structure of the underlying structural causal model, motivated by settings like Pearl's do-calculus, and give a nearly complete landscape across different arithmetics and PCH levels. Second, we study small models. While earlier work showed that satisfiable instances admit polynomial-size models, this is no longer guaranteed with compact marginalization. We characterize the complexities of satisfiability under small-model constraints across different settings.
The advances in vision-language models (VLMs) have led to a growing interest in autonomous driving to leverage their strong reasoning capabilities. However, extending these capabilities from 2D to full 3D understanding is crucial for real-world applications. To address this challenge, we propose OmniDrive, a holistic vision-language dataset that aligns agent models with 3D driving tasks through counterfactual reasoning. This approach enhances decision-making by evaluating potential scenarios and their outcomes, similar to human drivers considering alternative actions. Our counterfactual-based synthetic data annotation process generates large-scale, high-quality datasets, providing denser supervision signals that bridge planning trajectories and language-based reasoning. Futher, we explore two advanced OmniDrive-Agent frameworks, namely Omni-L and Omni-Q, to assess the importance of vision-language alignment versus 3D perception, revealing critical insights into designing effective LLM-agents. Significant improvements on the DriveLM Q\&A benchmark and nuScenes open-loop planning demonstrate the effectiveness of our dataset and methods.
Counterfactual reasoning, a cornerstone of human cognition and decision-making, is often seen as the 'holy grail' of causal learning, with applications ranging from interpreting machine learning models to promoting algorithmic fairness. While counterfactual reasoning has been extensively studied in contexts where the underlying causal model is well-defined, real-world causal modeling is often hindered by model and parameter uncertainty, observational noise, and chaotic behavior. The reliability of counterfactual analysis in such settings remains largely unexplored. In this work, we investigate the limitations of counterfactual reasoning within the framework of Structural Causal Models. Specifically, we empirically investigate \emph{counterfactual sequence estimation} and highlight cases where it becomes increasingly unreliable. We find that realistic assumptions, such as low degrees of model uncertainty or chaotic dynamics, can result in counterintuitive outcomes, including dramatic deviations between predicted and true counterfactual trajectories. This work urges caution when applying counterfactual reasoning in settings characterized by chaos and uncertainty. Furthermore, it raises the question of whether certain systems may pose fundamental limitations on the ability to answer counterfactual questions about their behavior.
Counterfactual explanations provide an intuitive way to understand model decisions by identifying minimal changes required to alter an outcome. However, applying counterfactual methods to time series models remains challenging due to temporal dependencies, high dimensionality, and the lack of an intuitive human-interpretable representation. We introduce MASCOTS, a method that leverages the Bag-of-Receptive-Fields representation alongside symbolic transformations inspired by Symbolic Aggregate Approximation. By operating in a symbolic feature space, it enhances interpretability while preserving fidelity to the original data and model. Unlike existing approaches that either depend on model structure or autoencoder-based sampling, MASCOTS directly generates meaningful and diverse counterfactual observations in a model-agnostic manner, operating on both univariate and multivariate data. We evaluate MASCOTS on univariate and multivariate benchmark datasets, demonstrating comparable validity, proximity, and plausibility to state-of-the-art methods, while significantly improving interpretability and sparsity. Its symbolic nature allows for explanations that can be expressed visually, in natural language, or through semantic representations, making counterfactual reasoning more accessible and actionable.
Fairness studies of algorithmic decision-making systems often simplify complex decision processes, such as bail or loan approvals, into binary classification tasks. However, these approaches overlook that such decisions are not inherently binary (e.g., approve or not approve bail or loan); they also involve non-binary treatment decisions (e.g., bail conditions or loan terms) that can influence the downstream outcomes (e.g., loan repayment or reoffending). In this paper, we argue that non-binary treatment decisions are integral to the decision process and controlled by decision-makers and, therefore, should be central to fairness analyses in algorithmic decision-making. We propose a causal framework that extends fairness analyses and explicitly distinguishes between decision-subjects' covariates and the treatment decisions. This specification allows decision-makers to use our framework to (i) measure treatment disparity and its downstream effects in historical data and, using counterfactual reasoning, (ii) mitigate the impact of past unfair treatment decisions when automating decision-making. We use our framework to empirically analyze four widely used loan approval datasets to reveal potential disparity in non-binary treatment decisions and their discriminatory impact on outcomes, highlighting the need to incorporate treatment decisions in fairness assessments. Moreover, by intervening in treatment decisions, we show that our framework effectively mitigates treatment discrimination from historical data to ensure fair risk score estimation and (non-binary) decision-making processes that benefit all stakeholders.