arxiv-2609-06704 SRC-0214 · paper

Counterfactual Tests for Measuring Chain-of-Thought Faithfulness in Visual Language Models

Bayar Menzat, Maximilian Süss, Ruizhi Wang, Benno Steinegger, Thomas Lukasiewicz, Oana-Maria Camburu

Created: 2026-09-06 · Ingested: 2026-09-19

https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.06704(opens in a new tab)

Chain-of-thought (CoT) may often look plausible, yet it may not faithfully reflect the model's decision-making process. While methods for measuring the faithfulness of CoTs for textual inputs have been increasingly introduced, using these methods for visual inputs is not straightforward. In this work, we adapt the family of counterfactual methods for measuring CoT faithfulness, namely the Counterfactual Test (CT) and Correlational Counterfactual Test (CCT), to visual inputs, and call them vCT and vCCT, respectively. Using vCT and vCCT, we benchmark eight recent open-source Vision Language Mode

In brief

Post-hoc explanations track the visual evidence that moves a model's predictions better than pre-answer chain-of-thought does, reversing the usual assumption that reasoning-before-answering is the more faithful format.

The authors port the Counterfactual Test and Correlational Counterfactual Test to images as vCT and vCCT: a pipeline (Qwen2.5-VL-7B for object selection, Qwen-Image-Edit for inpainting, Grounding DINO plus SAM for filtering) builds minimally edited image pairs differing by 1 removed object, released as Counter-SNLI-VE and Counter-A-OKVQA. 8 open-source VLMs (Qwen3.5-9B, Qwen2.5-VL-32B, Qwen3-VL-30B-A3B, InternVL3-38B, InternVL3.5-38B, Ovis2.5-9B, Kimi-VL-A3B, R-4B) are queried in Predict-then-Explain and CoT modes; vCCT correlates total variation distance in answer probabilities with whether the removed object is mentioned.

Mean vCCT is 0.303 (PE) vs 0.200 (CoT) on A-OKVQA and 0.264 vs 0.129 on SNLI-VE, with PE ahead in all 16 model-dataset pairs. Binary vCT saturates: 0.951/0.930 on A-OKVQA, 0.949/0.895 on SNLI-VE.

Evidence is measured with paired permutation tests, image-clustered bootstrap intervals, an accuracy-matched control (gap 0.110 vs 0.119), a directional-mention control, and a no-op reconstruction control on 500 SNLI-VE rows where object removal shifts TVD 0.0960 vs 0.0348 under PE. A 141-example audit found 87.9% correct edits and 92.2% correct mention detection; change-mention judging is itself a model (Qwen3-4B-Thinking).

Scope is object removal on 2 datasets; color edits were only a 122-pair feasibility test (11/16 comparisons favor PE), and relations, counting and actions are untested, as are hidden reasoning traces.

If you use vCT-style binary faithfulness scores, expect them to be uninformative and switch to a correlational metric.

Written from the abstract by claude-opus-5 on 2026-09-18, with every figure checked against it. Not a substitute for the paper.

Referenced by

Claims in this catalog that draw on this source, and whether as support or counterpoint.