Machine Unlearning Evaluation
Overview
Machine unlearning evaluation asks whether a model has genuinely lost the influence of specified training examples, facts, or users—not merely stopped producing them on familiar prompts. Common approaches compare behavior and utility with retrained models, measure membership or extraction risk, probe hidden representations, and test recovery through adversarial queries, fine-tuning, or sequential updates. Benchmarks span classifiers, language and vision-language models, generative systems, and agents, with checks for collateral damage to related knowledge and retained capabilities. A central tension remains: behavioral tests are practical but can miss recoverable information, while stronger audits may require costly reference models or risk exposing private data themselves.
Latest papers
105 papers20 papers in the last four weeks, up 150% on the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.
MLUBench: A Benchmark for Lifelong Unlearning Evaluation in MLLMs
REMEDI: A Benchmark for Retention and Unlearning Evaluation in Multi-label Clinical Disease Inference
SUPREME: A Multi-GPU Framework for Reproducible Image Unlearning Method Evaluation
Forgetting Has Neighbors: Localized Collateral Forgetting in Machine Unlearning
AMNESIA: A Large Scale Medical Unlearning Benchmark Suite with Disease-Informed Analysis
MAAT: Multi-phase Adapter-Aware Targeted Unlearning
RULER: Representation-Level Verification of Machine Unlearning
On the Robustness of Machine Unlearning for Vision-Language Models
Measuring the Depth of LLM Unlearning via Activation Patching
Calibration vs Decision Making: Revisiting the Reliability Paradox in Unlearned Language Models
Form and Function: Machine Unlearning as a Problem of Misaligned States
Auditing Reasoning-Trace Memorization Claims after Unlearning with Head-Conditioned Canaries
Forgetting That Sticks: Quantization-Permanent Unlearning via Circuit Attribution
Knowledge Beyond Language: Bridging the Gap in Multilingual Machine Unlearning Evaluation
PPU-Bench:Real World Benchmark for Personalized Partial Unlearning in Vision Language Models
Unlearners Can Lie: Evaluating and Improving Honesty in LLM Unlearning
Classification-Head Bias in Class-Level Machine Unlearning: Diagnosis, Mitigation, and Evaluation
ICU-Bench:Benchmarking Continual Unlearning in Multimodal Large Language Models
Not Every Subject Should Stay: Machine Unlearning for Noisy Engagement Recognition
Before Forgetting, Learn to Remember: Revisiting Foundational Learning Failures in LVLM Unlearning Benchmarks
Metric Unreliability in Multimodal Machine Unlearning: A Systematic Analysis and Principled Unified Score
Towards Reliable Testing of Machine Unlearning
Graph Propagated Projection Unlearning: A Unified Framework for Vision and Audio Discriminative Models
Efficient Unlearning through Maximizing Relearning Convergence Delay
An Illusion of Unlearning? Assessing Machine Unlearning Through Internal Representations
Is your algorithm unlearning or untraining?
delete'' specific data points or behaviours from a trained model, after the fact. This goal has been referred to as machine unlearning''. In this note, we argue that the term unlearning'' has been overloaded, with different research efforts spanning two distinct problem formulations, but without that distinction having been observed or acknowledged in the literature. This causes various issues, including ambiguity around when an algorithm is expected to work, use of inappropriate metrics and baselines when comparing different algorithms to one another, difficulty in interpreting results, as well as missed opportunities for pursuing critical research directions. In this note, we address this issue by establishing a fundamental distinction between two notions that we identify as \unlearning and \untraining, illustrated in Figure 1. In short, \untraining aims to reverse the effect of having trained on a given forget set, i.e. to remove the influence that that specific forget set examples had on the model during training. On the other hand, the goal of \unlearning is not just to remove the influence of those given examples, but to use those examples for the purpose of more broadly removing the entire underlying distribution from which those examples were sampled (e.g. the concept or behaviour that those examples represent). We discuss technical definitions of these problems and map problem settings studied in the literature to each. We hope to initiate discussions on disambiguating technical definitions and identify a set of overlooked research questions, as we believe that this a key missing step for accelerating progress in the field of unlearning''.