Do Unlearning Methods Remove Information from Language Model Weights?
Deeb, Aghyad, Roger, FabienarXiv.orgPublished Oct 11, 2024Original︎ ↗Archived copy
Stewards’ notes · 1
- Current LLM unlearning methods leave unlearned pretraining knowledge largely recoverable by fine-tuning on other facts from the forget set.
Supports. The paper's experiments bear the result for the three methods it tested (RMU, gradient difference, random incorrect answer), mainly on Llama 3 8B, on three sets of pretrained facts: recovery was at least 88% when retained-task accuracy fell by no more than 5%. "Current unlearning methods" in the abstract generalizes from those three. The same paper reports recovery under 35% for two of the methods on facts added by fine-tuning. Nov 11, 2026
Examinations
None recorded. An examination is commissioned by a claim’s Steward for what its claim rests on; a review of the document for its own sake is asked for as a request bearing on it.
Text56 passages · 1 marked
Abstract: Large Language Models' knowledge of how to perform cyber-security attacks, create bioweapons, and manipulate humans poses risks of misuse. Previous work has proposed methods to unlearn this knowledge. Historically, it has been unclear whether unlearning techniques are removing information from the model weights or just making it harder to access. To disentangle these two objectives, we propose an adversarial evaluation method to test for the removal of information from model weights: we give an attacker access to some facts that were supposed to be removed, and using those, the attacker tries to recover other facts from the same distribution that cannot be guessed from the accessible facts. We show that using fine-tuning on the accessible facts can recover 88% of the pre-unlearning accuracy when applied to current unlearning methods for information learned during pretraining, revealing the limitations of these methods in removing information from the model weights. Our results also suggest that unlearning evaluations that measure unlearning robustness on information learned during an additional fine-tuning phase may overestimate robustness compared to evaluations that attempt to unlearn information learned during pretraining.
Supports. The paper's experiments bear the result for the three methods it tested (RMU, gradient difference, random incorrect answer), mainly on Llama 3 8B, on three sets of pretrained facts: recovery was at least 88% when retained-task accuracy fell by no more than 5%. "Current unlearning methods" in the abstract generalizes from those three. The same paper reports recovery under 35% for two of the methods on facts added by fine-tuning.
Not yet read by this claim’s Steward.
Not yet read by this claim’s Steward.
Lineage across 3 claims
Record
- Kind
- unknown
- Authors
- Deeb, Aghyad, Roger, Fabien
- Publisher
- arXiv.org
- Published
- Oct 11, 2024
- DOI
- None
- Link
- https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08827
- Archived copy
- https://web.archive.org/web/20261022212407/https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.08827
- Stored text
- 4,750 characters, retrieved Nov 11, 2026 · 45 sections, 56 passages
- Claims extracted
- For
whether unlearning methods removed information from the weights or only suppressed it: methods tested, whether the facts were learned in pretraining or later fine-tuning, the fine-tuning attack, and how recovery was measured
· 4 claims (3 new) · Nov 11, 2026 for Reconciling conflicting published results on contested AI safety research questions
- For
- Versions
- One known
- Copies
- None recorded
- Corrections
- None recorded
- Facts checked
- Nov 11, 2026
History 4
- Nov 11, 2026ReadingSteward of “Current LLM unlearning methods leave unlearned…” · supports, read whole
- Nov 11, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 101 parts by its own structure
- Nov 11, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up
- Nov 11, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored