Machine unlearning is a promising approach to improve LLM safety by removing unwanted knowledge from the model. However, prevailing gradient-based unlearning methods suffer from issues such as high computational costs, hyperparameter instability, poor sequential unlearning capability, vulnerability to relearning attacks, low data efficiency, and lack of interpretability. While Sparse Autoencoders are well-suited to improve these aspects by enabling targeted activation-based unlearning, prior approaches underperform gradient-based methods. This work demonstrates that, contrary to these earlier findings, SAEs can significantly improve unlearning when employed dynamically. We introduce Dynamic DAE Guardrails (DSG), a novel method for precision unlearning that leverages principled feature selection and a dynamic classifier. Our experiments show DSG substantially outperforms leading unlearning methods, achieving superior forget-utility trade-offs. DSG addresses key drawbacks of gradient-based approaches for unlearning -- offering enhanced computational efficiency and stability, robust performance in sequential unlearning, stronger resistance to relearning attacks, better data efficiency including zero-shot settings, and more interpretable unlearning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An illustration of DSG
Algorithm 1 Dynamic SAE Guardrails (DSG)
Figure 2: Distribution of ρ(x) for unlearning on WMDP-Bio. Threshold at 95th percentile (dashed red line) separates MMLU from WMDP.
Figure 3: Unlearning performance on WMDP-Bio (left) and WMDP-Cyber (right). Higher MMLU accuracy and lower WMDP accuracy is better. Clamp strengths ( c ) used for DSG points are shown as annotations. DSG Pareto-dominates the top four baseline methods (RMU, SCRUB, Farrell et al., SSD).
Method
WMDP Bio ( ↓ )
MMLU ( ↑ )
MT ( ↑ )
HS Hist
C. CS
HS Geo
H. Aging
All
Target M
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
7.36
GA
99.44
98.18
100.00
100.00
100.00
99.35
7.44
NPO
97.95
99.99
88.88
100.00
98.82
99.35
7.29
SSD
99.44
100.00
100.00
100.00
98.82
99.68
7.24
SCRUB
94.97
99.09
100.00
100.00
98.82
99.35
6.09
Table 1: Unlearning performance on WMDP-Bio. All represents the average MMLU score. MT-Bench scores show 0.16 variance across 5 runs. DSG shows superior unlearning effectiveness compared to baselines while maintaining high MMLU performance.
C1. No Verbatim Mem.
C2. No Knowledge Mem.
C3. No Privacy Leak.
C4. Utiltiy Preserv.
VerbMem on Dforget ( ↓ )
KnowMem on Dforget ( ↓ )
PrivLeak ( ∈[−5%,5%] )
KnowMem on Dretain ( ↑ )
News
Target M
21.15
29.51
−88.16
26.78
GA
0.62
↓97.1%
0.00
↓100.0%
-8.16
under-unlearn
0.09
↓99.7%
GradDiff
2.81
↓86.7%
0.71
↓97.6%
93.10
over-unlearn
7.76
↓71.0%
NPO
20.98
↓0.8%
25.14
↓14.8%
-53.42
under-unlearn
29.02
↑8.4%
Table 2: Unlearning performance on MUSE. We highlight in green if the method satisfies the criterion and red otherwise. For privacy leakage, large positive values suggest over-unlearning , while large negative values suggest under-unlearning . DSG shows strong performance across all metrics, achieving substantial reductions in verbatim and knowledge memorization while maintaining high utility.
Figure 4: (a) Scalability: Performance across increasing forget set sizes. (b) Sequential Unlearning: Performance across sequential unlearning requests
Figure 5: Relearning attack resistance across finetuning epochs. (a) DSG demonstrates superior resistance to relearning compared to RMU. (b) Test-time DSG preserves MMLU utility better than Train-time DSG while still providing significant protection.
Figure 6: Data efficiency analysis of DSG. (A) Performance across varying training data sizes compared to RMU. (B) Zero-shot performance on WMDP-Bio (left) and WMDP-Cyber (right) using 20 features selected via Neuropedia API with different τ thresholds (shown next to each data point).
Figure 7: DSG Ablation studies (A) Static vs. dynamic clamping comparison with varying clamp strengths [10-500] for 20 and 30 features. (B) Effect of dynamic threshold percentile ( pdyn ) on performance (C) Impact of importance ratio threshold ( pratio , range 75-95) for 20 and 30 features.
Appendix figures & tables20 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 8: Distribution of forget-set activated tokens for WMDP-Cyber. Threshold at the 95th percentile (dashed red line) effectively separates MMLU from WMDP.
Table 10: Unlearning performance on WMDP-Cyber. All represents the average MMLU score. MT-Bench scores show 0.13 variance across 5 runs. DSG shows superior unlearning effectiveness compared to other baselines while maintaining high MMLU performance.
Unlearning Method
NEWS
BOOKS
GA
epoch 1
epoch 1
GradDiff
epoch 2
epoch 3
NPO
epoch 8
epoch 10
SimNPO
epoch 10
epoch 10
RMU
epoch 9
epoch 10
Appendix
Table 11: Optimal epochs for baseline unlearning methods on MUSE benchmark, determined by utility-based stopping criteria.
Figure 9: (a) Distribution of activation cosine similarity and activation magnitude ratio between Base and Finetuned models. Finetuning does not significantly change the underlying activation space. (b) Train loss when finetuning Base model and Base+SAE model on WMDP and MMLU. Loss on WMDP for the BASE+SAE model is significantly higher than on MMLU.
Figure 10: Relearning attack performance with reduced learning rate (1e-6). All configurations show minimal performance changes across finetuning epochs, demonstrating that relearning attack efficacy is strongly dependent on learning rate.
Parameter
Value
SAE
gemma-scope-2b-pt-res SAE (width 16k)
SAE layer
Layer 3, ℓ0 142
Importance ratio percentile ( pratio )
95
Dynamic threshold percentile ( pdyn )
95
Number of selected features
20
Clamp strength ( c )
500
Appendix
Table 12: DSG hyperparameters for data efficiency experiments
Parameter
Value
Steering coefficient
400
Alpha ( α )
100
Monitoring layer
3
Learning rate
5e-6
Parameter subset
MLP layers only
Appendix
Table 13: RMU hyperparameters for data efficiency experiments
Parameter
WMDP-Bio
WMDP-Cyber
SAE layer
Layer 3, ℓ0 59
Layer 3, ℓ0 59
Importance ratio percentile ( pratio )
95
90
Feature selection
20 features
20 features via
Clamp strength ( c )
500
500
τ range tested
0.1 to 0.9 (increments of 0.1)
0.1 to 0.9 (increments of 0.1)
Optimal τ
0.6
0.2
Appendix
Table 14: Hyperparameters for zero-shot experiments
Figure 11: Effect of clamp strength c on DSG performance across different feature counts. MMLU accuracy (solid lines) remains consistently high ( >99% ) for 10-20 features across all clamp values, while WMDP-Bio accuracy (dashed lines) drops sharply even at modest clamp strengths ( c=25 ). This demonstrates DSG’s ability to effectively remove targeted knowledge while preserving general model capabilities with minimal parameter sensitivity.
Figure 12: Total Variation Distance (TVD) between WikiText and benchmark datasets using percentage-based ( ρ ) vs. raw count-based ( ρraw ) metrics. Lower TVD between WikiText and MMLU indicates better alignment of retain sets, while higher TVD between WikiText and WMDP indicates better separation between retain and forget distributions. Percentage-based metrics consistently outperform raw counts on both measures across all benchmarks.
Seq Length
Original Model (s)
Static Clamping (s)
Dynamic Clamping (DSG) (s)
256 tokens
0.0872±0.0098
0.0933±0.0091 (+7.0%)
0.0936±0.0090 (+7.3%)
512 tokens
0.1618±0.0061
0.1659±0.0029 (+2.5%)
0.1676±0.0047 (+3.6%)
1024 tokens
0.3300±0.0081
0.3403±0.0083 (+3.1%)
0.3420±0.0081 (+3.6%)
Appendix
Table 15: Comparison of Inference Latency Across Sequence Lengths for gemma-2-2b-it with gemma-scope-2b-pt-res SAE. Data reported as mean ± std over 100 samples on a single A6000 GPU. Percentage increase relative to the Original Model shown in parentheses.
Figure 13: Feature Activations on Example Sequences from Forget Sets. (A) WMDP-Bio sequence with words highlighted in green indicating activation values >0 for feature ID (top) 373 and (bottom) 10933. (B) WMDP-Cyber sequence with words highlighted in green indicating activation values >0 for feature ID (top) 15286 and (bottom) 2905. Activation magnitudes are reported above the words in grey.
Biology
ID
Sentence
12382
Terms related to biological processes and structures in living organisms
9722
Concepts related to biological processes and systems
343
Terms related to biological processes and laboratory techniques
373
Scientific terminology related to biological processes and cellular functions
11
Scientific terms and concepts related to biology
Appendix
Table 16: Top 20 SAE Features for Biology and Cybersecurity in Zero-Shot Setting. List of the top 20 SAE feature IDs identified by querying Neuronpedia with “Biology” and “Cybersecurity”, alongside their corresponding Neuronpedia-provided interpretations, showing the semantic relevance of the selected features to the targeted knowledge domains.
Machine unlearning removes the influence of selected data or concepts from trained models while preserving useful behavior and avoiding full retraining.
Machine unlearning in Large Language Models (LLMs) faces a critical trade-off between erasing target knowledge and preserving general utility. We propose SAUL (Sharpness-Aware Augmented-Lagrangian Unlearning), which formulates unlearning as a constrained minimization problem following the principle of "forget enough, but no more than necessary." At its core, SAUL formulates forgetting as an explicit constraint with a prescribed satisfaction criterion, whereas prior unlearning methods typically specify the desired level of forgetting implicitly through optimization objectives. An augmented Lagrangian controller adaptively adjusts forget-side pressure according to constraint violation and can eventually deactivate the forget-side update as the prescribed criterion remains satisfied. Sharpness-aware updates on both retain and forget objectives, together with a dual-optimizer design that maintains role-separated states, further stabilize the resulting unlearning dynamics. We evaluate SAUL on the TOFU, WMDP, and MUSE benchmarks, demonstrating favorable forgetting-utility trade-offs over representative sharpness- and perturbation-based baselines under benchmark-specific forgetting criteria. Beyond the complete SAUL framework, we further show on TOFU that applying the augmented-Lagrangian controller as a drop-in modifier to representative baselines improves their post-forgetting utility, demonstrating the practical value of explicit forgetting control.
Jaewan Choi, Junyoung Yang, Sangdon Park
Computer Science and Engineering, POSTECH · Graduate School of Artificial Intelligence, POSTECH
Large Language Model (LLM) unlearning aims to remove undesirable knowledge or behaviors while preserving retained capabilities. Current unlearning methods all involve a trade-off between unlearning and retention. We have found that the retention activation bias can also be used to quantify the damage an unlearning method inflicts on retention, without considering the specific implementation of the unlearning process. This allows us to restore retention performance for any unlearning method using a post-hoc approach. Therefore, we propose a complementary post-hoc setting to sanitize the final update vector without rerunning the original unlearning pipeline. In this setting, we design SAGE, Spectral Activation-GEometry Sanitization, a source-agnostic correction for final unlearning updates. SAGE collects real module inputs from a small retain proxy, extracts their dominant activation geometry, and solves a source-anchored optimization objective in closed form, which suppresses update components aligned with high-energy retained directions while preserving the source method's forgetting carrier. Across multiple unlearning methods, model scales, and benchmarks, SAGE consistently relieves the retain-forget trade-off, identifying post-hoc sanitization of final vectors as a practical and underexplored axis for machine unlearning.
Jingyuan Zhang, Yucheng Bai, Peixi Wen +6
Institute of Image Processing and Pattern Recognition, Shanghai Jiao Tong University
Machine unlearning aims to remove specific knowledge from a trained large language model (LLM) without retraining from scratch. Existing methods modify model weights via gradient ascent and its advances. While effective on certain benchmarks, these weight-based approaches exhibit a sharp forget-utility trade-off, where stronger forgetting of target knowledge can degrade model utility, and unlearned knowledge may reappear under post-unlearning fine-tuning or prompt attacks. We propose ARIA (autoencoder-gated inference-time unlearning), a test-time unlearning method that leaves model weights intact and gates access to unwanted knowledge only when generation enters a forget-related state. ARIA uses sparse autoencoder (SAE) latents to train a lightweight linear detector, then applies an interpretable intervention on triggered states with negligible test-time overhead. Empirical evaluations on TOFU, R-TOFU, and WMDP show that ARIA improves the forget-retain trade-off over weight-based baselines across both a thinking model (DeepSeek-R1-Distilled-Qwen-1.5B) and an instruction model (Gemma-3-1B-it), e.g., reducing WMDP-cyber forget-set accuracy significantly while keeping MMLU within 1% of the pre-unlearning model. We further introduce three post-unlearning adversarial attacks targeting weight-space and decoding-space recovery, and find that ARIA remains robust under all three, with forgetting changing by less than 1% under attack. A feature-level case study leveraging the interpretability of ARIA suggests that some retain degradation may reflect response styles underlying the unlearning data rather than leakage of the targeted knowledge itself, highlighting a potential source of bias in unlearning task construction.
Pingzhi Li, Jinhao Duan, Vaishnav Tadiparthi +6
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · 2Honda Research Institute · 3Michigan State University