mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Ascent Fails to Forget

arXiv 2509.26427 ↗First posted 30 Sep 2025cs.LG cs.AIcited by 12

On the map: LLM safety and security → Machine unlearning

Abstract (arXiv)

Contrary to common belief, we show that gradient ascent-based unconstrained optimization methods frequently fail to perform machine unlearning, a phenomenon we attribute to the inherent statistical dependence between the forget and retain data sets. This dependence, which can manifest itself even as simple correlations, undermines the misconception that these sets can be independently manipulated during unlearning. We provide empirical and theoretical evidence showing these methods often fail precisely due to this overlooked relationship. For random forget sets, this dependence means that degrading forget set metrics (which, for a retrained model, should mirror test set metrics) inevitably harms overall test performance. Going beyond random sets, we consider logistic regression as an instructive example where a critical failure mode emerges: inter-set dependence causes gradient descent-ascent iterations to progressively diverge from the ideal retrained model. Strikingly, these methods can converge to solutions that are not only far from the retrained ideal but are potentially even further from it than the original model itself, rendering the unlearning process actively detrimental. A toy example further illustrates how this dependence can trap models in inferior local minima, inescapable via finetuning. Our findings highlight that the presence of such statistical dependencies, even when manifest only as correlations, can be sufficient for ascent-based unlearning to fail. Our theoretical insights are corroborated by experiments on complex neural networks, demonstrating that these methods do not perform as expected in practice due to this unaddressed statistical interplay.

Key facts. Cited by 12 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Machine unlearning, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 31 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2025.

Builds on

31 of 42 references.

Closest ancestors · 14

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024Attribute-to-Delete: Machine Unlearning via Datamodel Matching30 Oct
  2. 2024Rewind-to-Delete: Certified Machine Unlearning for Nonconvex Functions15 Sep
  3. 2024Machine Unlearning Fails to Remove Data Poisoning Attacks25 Jun
  4. 2024To Each (Textual Sequence) Its Own: Improving Memorized-Data Unlearning in Large Language Models6 May
  5. 2024Langevin Unlearning: A New Perspective of Noisy Gradient Descent for Machine Unlearning18 Jan
  6. 2023Fast-NTK: Parameter-Efficient Unlearning for Large-Scale Models22 Dec
  7. 2023Who's Harry Potter? Approximate Unlearning in LLMs3 Oct
  8. 2023Model Sparsity Can Simplify Machine Unlearning11 Apr
  9. 2023Towards Unbounded Machine Unlearning20 Feb
  10. 2022Algorithms that Approximate Data Removal: New Results and Limitations25 Sep
  11. 2022Towards Adversarial Evaluations for Inexact Machine Unlearning17 Jan
  12. 2021On the Necessity of Auditable Algorithmic Definitions for Machine Unlearning22 Oct
2 more
  1. 2021Machine Unlearning of Features and Labels26 Aug
  2. 2021Certifiable Machine Unlearning for Linear Models29 Jun

Other references · 17

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
  2. 2017Fashion-MNIST: a Novel Image Dataset for Benchmarking Machine Learning Algorithmscited by 4,349
  3. 2019Machine Unlearningcited by 1,061
  4. 2017The Implicit Bias of Gradient Descent on Separable Datacited by 655
  5. 2019Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Net: Selective Forgetting in Deep Networkscited by 618
  6. 2019Certified Data Removal from Machine Learning Modelscited by 535
  7. 2024The WMDP Benchmark: Measuring and Reducing Malicious Use With Unlearningcited by 509
  8. 2019Making AI Forget You: Data Deletion in Machine Learningcited by 465
  9. 2021Large Language Models Can Be Strong Differentially Private Learnerscited by 412
  10. 2020Amnesiac Machine Learningcited by 319
  11. 2023Ablating Concepts in Text-to-Image Diffusion Modelscited by 317
  12. 2020Descent-to-Delete: Gradient-Based Methods for Machine Unlearningcited by 311
5 more
  1. 2023MQuAKE: Assessing Knowledge Editing in Language Models via Multi-Hop Questionscited by 300
  2. 2020Approximate Data Deletion from Machine Learning Modelscited by 255
  3. 2020BREEDS: Benchmarks for Subpopulation Shiftcited by 155
  4. 2020DeltaGrad: Rapid retraining of machine learning modelscited by 149
  5. 2022Linear Adversarial Concept Erasurecited by 101

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 11.

12 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2024Challenging Forgets: Unveiling the Worst-Case Forget Sets in Machine Unlearning
  2. 2026Why Some Models Resist Unlearning: A Linear Stability Perspective
  3. 2026Is Gradient Ascent Really Necessary? Memorize to Forget for Machine Unlearning
  4. 2025On the Impossibility of Retrain Equivalence in Machine Unlearning
  5. 2025When to Forget? Complexity Trade-offs in Machine Unlearning
  6. 2026Unmerge: Efficient Machine Unlearning via Task Arithmetic
  7. 2026BLADE: Bilevel Low-rank Augmented-Lagrangian Erasure for LLM Unlearning
  8. 2025Provable Unlearning with Gradient Ascent on Two-Layer ReLU Neural Networks