Minerval
Sourceunknowntext stored

Do Unlearning Methods Remove Information from Language Model Weights?

Deeb, Aghyad, Roger, FabienarXiv.orgPublished Oct 11, 2024Original︎ ↗Archived copy

Claims3
ExaminationsNone
Text45 sections
VersionsOne known
CopiesNone recorded
CorrectionsNone recorded
Facts checked Nov 11, 2026
ReachNo copies recorded
StructureOrigin on 1 claimby the Steward's reading on 1 · 0 sources downstream across 3 claims
Evidence1 reading · 1 read wholeSupports 1No claim cites an examination's findings
ReviewsNot reviewed
Stewards’ notes · 1

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

No examination yetMarked passage
Skip to main content0 passages
Search1 passage
Log in0 passages
Search arXiv0 passages
Press Enter to search · Advanced search0 passages
Computer Science > Machine Learning3 passages
Authors: Aghyad Deeb , Fabien Roger8 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.

Current LLM unlearning methods leave unlearned pretraining knowledge largely recoverable by fine-tuning on other facts from the forget set.SupportedReading · this claim’s Steward

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.

Focus to learn more1 passage
Submission history5 passages
View PDF1 passage
TeX Source8 passages
References & Citations0 passages
NASA ADS0 passages
Google Scholar0 passages
Semantic Scholar1 passage
BibTeX formatted citation3 passages
Bookmark0 passages
Bibliographic Tools0 passages
Bibliographic and Citation Tools0 passages
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle1 passage
Connected Papers Toggle1 passage
Litmaps Toggle3 passages
Code, Data, Media0 passages
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article2 passages
Links to Code Toggle1 passage
DagsHub Toggle1 passage
GotitPub Toggle1 passage
Huggingface Toggle1 passage
ScienceCast Toggle1 passage
Demos0 passages
Demos0 passages
Replicate Toggle1 passage
Spaces Toggle1 passage
Spaces Toggle1 passage
Related Papers0 passages
Recommenders and Search Tools0 passages
Link to Influence Flower1 passage
Core recommender toggle1 passage
IArxiv recommender toggle1 passage
Author0 passages
Venue0 passages
Institution0 passages
Topic0 passages
About arXivLabs7 passages
Major funding support from0 passages

Lineage across 3 claims

Draws on · none recorded
This source
Do Unlearning Methods Remove Information from Language Model Weights?
Origin on 1 claim · in 3 claims' maps
Drawn on by · none recorded

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
Versions
One known
Copies
None recorded
Corrections
None recorded
Facts checked
Nov 11, 2026

History 4

  1. Nov 11, 2026ReadingSteward of “Current LLM unlearning methods leave unlearned…” · supports, read whole
  2. Nov 11, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 101 parts by its own structure
  3. Nov 11, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up
  4. Nov 11, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored
Do Unlearning Methods Remove Information from Language Model Weights? · Minerval