arXiv:2604.04943cs.CLcs.AI2026-04

发现语言模型反向推理失败,揭示其本质是双向训练机制差异。

The Illusion of Latent Generalization: Bi-directionality and the Reversal Curse

  • 通过对比MLM与解码器掩码训练,研究反向推理的机制差异。
  • 反向准确率依赖显式目标实体的训练信号,非统一概念表征。
  • 不同训练方式存储正反方向信息为独立条目,索引结构不同。

反转诅咒指自回归语言模型在逆序检索事实时失败(如训练于‘A > B’却无法处理‘B < A’)。近期研究发现,双向监督(如双向注意力或仅解码器的掩码重建)可缓解此问题。本文扩展评估至基础掩码语言建模(MLM)目标,并与仅解码器的掩码训练在四个反转基准上进行对比,进一步开展最小化机制分析。结果表明,反向准确率依赖于显式将源实体作为预测目标的训练信号;且几乎没有证据支持成功源于单一方向无关的事实表征。相反,表示距离和线性探测显示,正向与反向方向以独立条目存储,且MLM与解码器掩码训练采用不同的索引几何结构。研究警示:目标层面的‘修复’可能提升反向表现,却不必然带来预期的潜在泛化能力。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

The reversal curse describes a failure of autoregressive language models to retrieve a fact in reverse order (e.g., training on ``$A > B$'' but failing on ``$B < A$''). Recent work shows that objectives with bidirectional supervision (e.g., bidirectional attention or masking-based reconstruction for decoder-only models) can mitigate the reversal curse. We extend this evaluation to include a vanilla masked language modeling (MLM) objective and compare it to decoder-only masking-based training across four reversal benchmarks and then provide a minimal mechanistic study of \emph{how} these objectives succeed. We show that reversal accuracy requires training signal that explicitly makes the source entity a prediction target, and we find little evidence that success corresponds to a single direction-agnostic representation of a fact. Instead, representation distances and linear probes are consistent with storing forward and reverse directions as distinct entries, with different indexing geometry for MLM versus decoder-only masking-based training. Our results caution that objective-level ``fixes'' can improve reversal behavior without necessarily inducing the kind of latent generalization one might expect from a unified concept.

语言模型反向推理表征学习

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。