Papers › Untying the Reversal Curse via Bidirectional Language Model Editing

Untying the Reversal Curse via Bidirectional Language Model Editing

16 Oct 2023arXiv:2310.10322archive 2025-07-28

Jun-Yu Ma, Jia-Chen Gu, Zhen-Hua Ling, Quan Liu, Cong Liu

Recent studies have demonstrated that large language models (LLMs) store massive factual knowledge within their parameters. But existing LLMs are prone to hallucinate unintended text due to false or outdated knowledge. Since retraining LLMs is resource intensive, there has been a growing interest in the concept of model editing. Despite the emergence of benchmarks and approaches, these unidirectional editing and evaluation have failed to explore the reversal curse. Intuitively, if "The capital of France is" is edited to be a counterfact "London" within a model, then it should be able to naturally reason and recall the reverse fact, i.e., "London is the capital of" followed by "France" instead of "England". In this paper, we study bidirectional language model editing, aiming to provide rigorous model editing evaluation to assess if edited LLMs can recall the editing knowledge bidirectionally. A new evaluation metric of reversibility is introduced, and a benchmark dubbed as Bidirectional Assessment for Knowledge Editing (BAKE) is constructed to evaluate the reversibility of edited models in recalling knowledge in the reverse direction of editing. We surprisingly observe that while current editing methods and LLMs can effectively recall editing facts in the direction of editing, they suffer serious deficiencies when evaluated in the reverse direction. To mitigate the reversal curse, a method named Bidirectionally Inversible Relationship moDeling (BIRD) is proposed. A set of editing objectives that incorporate bidirectional relationships between subject and object into the updated model weights are designed. Experiments show that BIRD improves the performance of four representative LLMs of different sizes via question answering and judgement.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

5 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 5 of the 5 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from mjy1111/bake. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections