Is the Reversal Curse a Binding Problem? Uncovering Limitations of Transformers from a Basic Generalization Failure
Boshi Wang, Huan Sun
Abstract
Despite their impressive capabilities, LLMs exhibit a basic generalization failure known as the Reversal Curse, where they struggle to learn reversible factual associations. Understanding why this occurs could help identify weaknesses in current models and advance their generalization and robustness. In this paper, we conjecture that the Reversal Curse in LLMs is a manifestation of the long-standing binding problem in cognitive science, neuroscience and AI. Specifically, we hypothesize two primary causes of the Reversal Curse stemming from transformers' limitations in conceptual binding: the inconsistency and entanglements of concept representations. We perform a series of experiments that support these conjectures. Our exploration leads to a model design based on JEPA (Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture) that for the first time breaks the Reversal Curse without side-stepping it with specialized data augmentation or non-causal masking, and moreover, generalization could be further improved by incorporating special memory layers that support disentangled concept representations. Our research opens up the broader fundamental challenge of designing models capable of learning systematic conceptual binding with less human scaffolding.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 089019e0-3880-4e62-b883-adef2139d241Cited by top-tier papers9
- LLM-JEPA: Large Language Models Meet Joint Embedding Predictive ArchitecturesHai Huang, Yann LeCun, Randall BalestrieroICLR 2026 · 40 citations
- Does Object Binding Naturally Emerge in Large Pretrained Vision Transformers?Yihao Li, Saeed Salehi, Lyle H. Ungar, Konrad P. KordingNeurIPS 2025 · 20 citations
- How do Transformers Learn Implicit Reasoning?Jiaran Ye, Zijun Yao, Zhidian Huang, Liangming Pan et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 17 citations
- Empty Shelves or Lost Keys? Recall Is the Bottleneck for Parametric FactualityNitay Calderon, Eyal Ben-David, Zorik Gekhman, Eran Ofek et al.ICML 2026 · 8 citations
- Semantic Tube Prediction: Beating LLM Data Efficiency with JEPAHai Huang, Yann LeCun, Randall BalestrieroICML 2026 · 8 citations
Builds on22
- Language Models are Few-Shot LearnersTom B. Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah et al.NeurIPS 2020 · 64,255 citations
- Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTKevin Meng, David Bau, Alex Andonian, Yonatan BelinkovNeurIPS 2022 · 3,415 citations
- Medusa: Simple LLM Inference Acceleration Framework with Multiple Decoding HeadsTianle Cai, Yuhong Li, Zhengyang Geng, Hongwu Peng et al.ICML 2024 · 669 citations
- The Reversal Curse: LLMs trained on "A is B" fail to learn "B is A"Lukas Berglund, Meg Tong, Maximilian Kaufmann, Mikita Balesni et al.ICLR 2024 · 462 citations
- Language Models Represent Space and TimeWes Gurnee, Max TegmarkICLR 2024 · 303 citations
Related papers
- An Analysis and Mitigation of the Reversal CurseAng Lv, Kaiyi Zhang, Shufang Xie, Quan Tu et al.EMNLP 2024
- Breaking the Reversal Curse in Autoregressive Language Models via Identity BridgeXutao Ma, Yixiao Huang, Hanlin Zhu, Somayeh SojoudiICML 2026 · 2 citations
- Delving into the Reversal Curse: How Far Can Large Language Models Generalize?Zhengkai Lin, Zhihang Fu, Kai Liu, Liang Xie et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 12 citations
- Towards a Theoretical Understanding of the 'Reversal Curse' via Training DynamicsHanlin Zhu, Baihe Huang, Shaolun Zhang, Michael I. Jordan et al.NeurIPS 2024 · 37 citations
- Bilinear representation mitigates reversal curse and enables consistent model editingDong-Kyum Kim, Minsung Kim, Jea Kwon, Nakyeong Yang et al.ICLR 2026 · 1 citation
