Arvind Raghavan

Vitali Petsiuk, Alexander E. Siemenn, Saisamrit Surbehera et al.

We provide a new multi-task benchmark for evaluating text-to-image models. We perform a human evaluation comparing the most common open-source (Stable Diffusion) and commercial (DALL-E 2) models. Twenty computer science AI graduate students evaluated the two models, on three tasks, at three difficulty levels, across ten prompts each, providing 3,600 ratings. Text-to-image generation has seen rapid progress to the point that many recent models have demonstrated their ability to create realistic high-resolution images for various prompts. However, current text-to-image methods and the broader body of research in vision-language understanding still struggle with intricate text prompts that contain many objects with multiple attributes and relationships. We introduce a new text-to-image benchmark that contains a suite of thirty-two tasks over multiple applications that capture a model's ability to handle different features of a text prompt. For example, asking a model to generate a varying number of the same object to measure its ability to count or providing a text prompt with several objects that each have a different attribute to identify its ability to match objects and attributes correctly. Rather than subjectively evaluating text-to-image results on a set of prompts, our new multi-task benchmark consists of challenge tasks at three difficulty levels (easy, medium, and hard) and human ratings for each generated image.

Arvind Raghavan, Elias Bareinboim

Previous work establishing completeness results for counterfactual identification has been circumscribed to the setting where the input data belongs to observational or interventional distributions (Layers 1 and 2 of Pearl's Causal Hierarchy), since it was generally presumed impossible to obtain data from counterfactual distributions, which belong to Layer 3. However, recent work (Raghavan & Bareinboim, 2025) has formally characterized a family of counterfactual distributions which can be directly estimated via experimental methods - a notion they call counterfactual realizabilty. This leaves open the question of what additional counterfactual quantities now become identifiable, given this new access to (some) Layer 3 data. To answer this question, we develop the CTFIDU+ algorithm for identifying counterfactual queries from an arbitrary set of Layer 3 distributions, and prove that it is complete for this task. Building on this, we establish the theoretical limit of which counterfactuals can be identified from physically realizable distributions, thus implying the fundamental limit to exact causal inference in the non-parametric setting. Finally, given the impossibility of identifying certain critical types of counterfactuals, we derive novel analytic bounds for such quantities using realizable counterfactual data, and corroborate using simulations that counterfactual data helps tighten the bounds for non-identifiable quantities in practice.

Arvind Raghavan, Elias Bareinboim

It is commonly believed that, in a real-world environment, samples can only be drawn from observational and interventional distributions, corresponding to Layers 1 and 2 of the Pearl Causal Hierarchy. Layer 3, representing counterfactual distributions, is believed to be inaccessible by definition. However, Bareinboim, Forney, and Pearl (2015) introduced a procedure that allows an agent to sample directly from a counterfactual distribution, leaving open the question of what other counterfactual quantities can be estimated directly via physical experimentation. We resolve this by introducing a formal definition of realizability, the ability to draw samples from a distribution, and then developing a complete algorithm to determine whether an arbitrary counterfactual distribution is realizable given fundamental physical constraints, such as the inability to go back in time and subject the same unit to a different experimental condition. We illustrate the implications of this new framework for counterfactual data collection using motivating examples from causal fairness and causal reinforcement learning. While the baseline approach in these motivating settings typically follows an interventional or observational strategy, we show that a counterfactual strategy provably dominates both.