Machine Unlearning (MU) enables Large Language Models (LLMs) to remove unsafe or outdated information. However, existing work assumes that all facts are equally forgettable and largely ignores whether the forgotten knowledge originates from pretraining or supervised fine-tuning (SFT). In this paper, we introduce DUET (Dual Unlearning Evaluation across Training Stages), a benchmark of 28.6k Wikidata-derived triplets annotated with fact popularity using Wikipedia link counts and LLM-based salience scores. Our experiments show that pretrained and SFT models respond differently to unlearning. An SFT step on the forget data yields smoother forgetting, more stable tuning, and 10-50% higher retention, while direct unlearning on pretrained models remains unstable and prone to relearning or catastrophic forgetting.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Unlearning landscape across fact popularity and model training type. Existing unlearning work does not account for popularity, implicitly assuming all facts are equal. Most studies evaluate forgetting on pretrained or SFT models without contrasting the two. The underexplored quadrant concerns analyzing how unlearning differs between pretrained and SFT models when fact popularity is taken into account.
Figure 2: Overview of the DUET benchmark. (a) Topic distribution across 25 semantic themes (28.6k validated QA pairs), dominated by the places city domain. (b) The filtering and stratification to derive rare and popular forget sets and the retain intersection. (c) Compact retain subsets ( retain 500 and retain 1500 ) drawn from places city , providing resource-efficient yet structurally consistent evaluation settings.
Figure 3: Unlearning results for the city domain and, top N = 5% rare/popular entities. Top: rare; bottom: popular. Left: forget ( city_forget_{rare,popular}_5 ); right: retain ( city_fast_retain_500 ). ROUGE is reported across learning rates. Pretrain is shown as a solid line with circles; SFT as a dashed line with stars.
ROUGE-L
Judge Acc.
Judge Flu.
Train type
Algo
Pop.
Forget ↓
Retain ↑
Forget ↓
Retain ↑
Forget ↑
Retain ↑
Pretrain
w/o
rare
0.691
0.871
0.584
0.839
0.701
0.840
SFT
w/o
rare
0.987
0.990
0.773
0.862
0.741
0.649
Pretrain
GA
rare
0.476 ( − 0.22)
0.717 ( − 0.15)
0.368 ( − 0.22)
0.670 ( − 0.17)
0.646 ( − 0.06)
0.748 ( − 0.09)
SFT
GA
rare
0.350 ( − 0.64)
0.931 ( − 0.06)
0.507 ( − 0.27)
0.842 ( − 0.02)
0.642 ( − 0.10)
0.615 ( − 0.03)
Pretrain
GD
rare
0.465 ( − 0.23)
0.779 ( − 0.09)
0.358 ( − 0.23)
0.747 ( − 0.09)
0.577 ( − 0.12)
0.627 ( − 0.21)
Table 1: LLaMA-3.1-8B at N=5% , lr=2×10−5 . ROUGE-L measures lexical forgetting and retention. Judge Accuracy measures factual alignment with the reference answer; Judge Fluency measures linguistic naturalness (DeepSeek v1). Parentheses show change from the matching w/o baseline.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Question
Answer
Pop. score
Label
What is the founded by Welch’s?
Thomas Bramwell Welch
44
rare
What is the instance of Viltolarsen?
antisense oligonucleotide
47
rare
What is the subclass of cowpunk?
punk music
47
rare
What is the capital of Poland?
Warsaw
2435
popular
What is the highest judicial authority of Australia?
High Court of Australia
2443
popular
What is the country of Cayenne?
France
2445
popular
Appendix
Table 2: Examples of DUET question–answer pairs with popularity annotations.
Figure 4: Distributions of popularity scores ( pop_sum ) for the city domain in the new and old benchmark splits. The left panel shows the rare forget 5% subset and the right panel the popular forget 5% subset. Of 482 samples, 87 differ from the previous version, yielding an overall overlap of 81.95%.
Algorithm
LR
Popularity
ROUGE-L Before
ROUGE-L After
GradAscent
2e-5
popular
0.998
0.439
GradAscent
4e-5
popular
0.998
0.008
GradAscent
5e-6
popular
0.998
0.998
GradAscent
2e-5
rare
0.994
0.991
GradAscent
4e-5
rare
0.994
0.369
GradAscent
5e-6
rare
0.994
0.993
Appendix
Table 3: Full-parameter SFT with LoRA unlearning on the city-forget split. ROUGE-L is reported before and after unlearning.
Algorithm
LR
Popularity
ROUGE-L Before
ROUGE-L After
GradAscent
2e-5
popular
0.988
0.000
GradAscent
2e-5
rare
0.964
0.000
GradDiff
2e-5
popular
0.988
0.001
GradDiff
2e-5
rare
0.964
0.001
NPO
2e-5
popular
0.988
0.144
NPO
2e-5
rare
0.964
0.046
Appendix
Table 4: Full-parameter SFT with LoRA unlearning on the multi-domain split at lr=2×10−5 . All algorithms show near-complete output collapse, in contrast to LoRA SFT (Table 1 ).
Figure 5: City, N=1% . Top: rare; bottom: popular. Left: forget ( city_forget_{rare,popular}_1 ); right: retain ( city_fast_retain_500 ). ROUGE is reported across learning rates. Pretrain is shown as a solid line with circles; SFT as a dashed line with stars. Baselines are solid horizontal lines.
Figure 6: City, N=10% . Top: rare; bottom: popular. Left: forget ( city_forget_{rare,popular}_1 ); right: retain ( city_fast_retain_500 ). ROUGE is reported across learning rates. Pretrain is shown as a solid line with circles; SFT as a dashed line with stars. Baselines are solid horizontal lines.
ROUGE-L
Judge Acc.
Judge Flu.
Train type
Algo
Pop.
Forget ↓
Retain ↑
Forget ↓
Retain ↑
Forget ↑
Retain ↑
Pretrain
w/o
rare
0.515
0.445
0.212
0.562
0.973
0.990
SFT
w/o
rare
0.973
0.923
0.770
0.903
0.952
0.915
Pretrain
GA
rare
0.267 ( − 0.25)
0.148 ( − 0.30)
0.369 ( + 0.16)
0.269 ( − 0.29)
0.546 ( − 0.43)
0.830 ( − 0.16)
SFT
GA
rare
0.337 ( − 0.64)
0.869 ( − 0.05)
0.316 ( − 0.45)
0.801 ( − 0.10)
0.765 ( − 0.19)
0.820 ( − 0.10)
Pretrain
GD
rare
0.421 ( − 0.09)
0.633 ( + 0.19)
0.149 ( − 0.06)
0.645 ( + 0.08)
0.620 ( − 0.35)
0.877 ( − 0.11)
Appendix
Table 5: Gemma-7B at N=5% , lr=2×10−5 . ROUGE-L measures lexical forgetting and retention. Judge Accuracy measures factual alignment; Judge Fluency measures linguistic naturalness (DeepSeek v1). Parentheses show change from the matching w/o baseline.
Figure 7: Evaluation on LLM benchmarks. Left: MMLU accuracy. Right: HellaSwag accuracy (acc_norm). Curves show unlearning algorithms (GradAscent, GradDiff, NPO) on rare and popular forget sets across learning rates; pretrained models are solid, SFT models dashed; horizontal lines indicate the corresponding baselines.
Alg.
Set
Phase
Pop.
n
ΔlogP
rank base
rank unl
Δ rank
GA
forget
pretrain
popular
482
3.88
34.2
41.8
7.5
GA
forget
pretrain
rare
482
2.07
8.8
230.4
221.6
GA
forget
sft
popular
482
10.94
59.9
55.2
-4.6
GA
forget
sft
rare
482
2.72
111.3
49.7
-61.6
NPO
forget
pretrain
popular
482
0.32
34.2
35.3
1.1
NPO
forget
pretrain
rare
482
0.99
8.8
17.6
8.9
Appendix
Table 6: Token-level probability and rank shifts under unlearning for GradAscent (GA) and NPO. Values are averaged over samples; Δ denotes unlearned minus base.
Alg.
Phase
Unlearn
Pop.
cosine
ℓ2
cosine (std)
ℓ2 (std)
GA
pretrain
pop
popular
0.982
3.35
0.006
0.61
GA
pretrain
rare
rare
0.981
2.70
0.008
0.66
GA
sft
pop
popular
0.958
5.47
0.016
1.01
GA
sft
rare
rare
0.966
3.81
0.011
0.81
NPO
pretrain
pop
popular
0.996
1.52
0.001
0.27
NPO
pretrain
rare
rare
0.990
1.98
0.003
0.36
Appendix
Table 7: Hidden-state similarity between base and unlearned models for GradAscent (GA) and NPO. Metrics are averaged across layers and samples.
Train type
Algorithm
Forget set
LR
Forget
Retain
SFT
UNDIAL
popular
1e-6
0.931
0.990
SFT
UNDIAL
popular
2e-5
0.865
0.998
SFT
UNDIAL
popular
5e-5
0.823
1.000
SFT
UNDIAL
rare
1e-6
0.988
0.990
SFT
UNDIAL
rare
2e-5
0.648
0.987
SFT
UNDIAL
rare
5e-5
0.679
0.994
Appendix
Table 8: UNDIAL (self-distillation) unlearning results on DUET across learning rates, evaluated on popular and rare forget splits.
Figure 8: City split ( N=5% ) evaluated on Gemma 7B. Top: rare; bottom: popular. Left: forget sets ( city_forget_{rare,popular}_5 ); right: retain set ( city_fast_retain_500 ). ROUGE scores are shown across learning rates. Pretrained models are plotted as solid lines with circles, and SFT models are plotted as dashed lines with stars. Solid horizontal lines indicate baselines.
Figure 9: City split ( N=5% ) evaluated on Qwen-2.5 7B. Top: rare; bottom: popular. Left: forget sets ( city_forget_{rare,popular}_5 ); right: retain set ( city_fast_retain_500 ). ROUGE scores are shown across learning rates. Pretrained models are plotted as solid lines with circles, and SFT models are plotted as dashed lines with stars. Solid horizontal lines indicate baselines.
Train type
Algorithm
Forget set
LR
Forget
Retain
SFT
GradAscent
popular
2e-5
0.461
0.736
SFT
GradAscent
rare
2e-5
0.651
0.729
SFT
GradDiff
popular
2e-5
0.477
0.743
SFT
GradDiff
rare
2e-5
0.654
0.754
SFT
NPO
popular
2e-5
0.482
0.741
SFT
NPO
rare
2e-5
0.668
0.731
Appendix
Table 9: Multi-domain unlearning results on DUET subset. Metrics are reported for learning rate 2e−5 .
Machine unlearning removes the influence of selected data or concepts from trained models while preserving useful behavior and avoiding full retraining.
Machine unlearning in LLMs is the targeted removal of specific knowledge while preserving all other capabilities, critical for privacy and safety. Yet existing benchmarks measure it unreliably. They miss knowledge that resurfaces under paraphrased or indirect queries, a failure we call under-forgetting, and lack the semantic, syntactic, and lexical probes needed to verify that unrelated knowledge is preserved, a failure we call over-forgetting. Both failures reflect an asymmetric generalization problem. Forget evaluation must cover diverse query formulations of the same target facts, testing whether forgetting holds beyond exact training prompts. Retain evaluation must probe a far larger and implicitly defined set, namely every fact disjoint from the forget target. The retain set thus defines the effective forget set, yet current datasets provide no fine-grained annotation of this forget-retain boundary. We address this with SUITE, an evaluation protocol and training corpus that captures forget-retain structure for real-world factual domains. Methods trained on SUITE improve substantially, showing that training data is as important as algorithmic design. Building on the obtained insights, we introduce JensUn++, an unlearning algorithm that achieves the best forget-retain utility trade-off across three LLMs, in both sequential and joint unlearning settings. Code and datasets are available at https://amitpeleg.github.io/forget-narrowly-retain-broadly
Machine unlearning for large language models (LLMs) aims to remove specified knowledge while preserving the rest of the model's capabilities. However, the boundary between knowledge to forget and knowledge to retain is often unclear, since related and even distant information may be entangled in the model. In this paper, we study LLM unlearning from a data-centric perspective and measure how unlearning effects propagate from the forget set to same-domain and distant-domain knowledge not after but before unlearning. We find a consistent decay pattern: collateral damage is strongest near the forget set, weakens with semantic distance, but does not disappear at domain boundaries. We further ask whether such damage can be audited before unlearning is executed. We formulate forget-set auditing as a pre-unlearning prediction task and analyze which data features are most predictive of downstream damage. Our results show that interaction features between the forget set and evaluation set provide the strongest signals, suggesting that collateral damage is partly reflected in data geometry before model updates occur. These findings position forget-set auditing as an early warning tool for identifying risky unlearning runs and designing more reliable unlearning procedures. Code and data are available at https://github.com/BartSu/PreUnlearn.
While an unlearned language model may no longer recall a fact directly, the fact often remains recoverable through multi-hop reasoning over related knowledge. Most existing unlearning techniques overlook this vulnerability, targeting facts in isolation while leaving their supporting knowledge intact. To achieve true forgetting, we propose a general deep unlearning framework compatible with existing unlearning algorithms. Our approach adaptively explores both explicit responses and latent internal representations to discover valid reasoning paths, compiles them into a confidence-aware supporting subgraph, and we apply a graph minimum cut to sever all recovery paths while preserving unrelated knowledge. To rigorously evaluate deep unlearning, we introduce a model-specific pipeline that extracts and completes knowledge graphs from raw text, filtering them by calibrated model confidence to reflect what the model genuinely retains. Comprehensive experiments demonstrate that selectively unlearning supporting knowledge yields substantially deeper forgetting than superficial methods while preserving model utility, highlighting that genuine unlearning requires breaking the relational structures that enable factual reconstruction.
Jialu Wang, Peizhi Niu, Haoteng Yin +3
Tongji University · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Purdue University +1