WIN-U: Woodbury-Informed Newton-Unlearning as a retain-free Machine Unlearning Framework
On the map: LLM safety and security → Machine unlearning
Abstract (arXiv)
Privacy concerns in LLMs have led to the rapidly growing need to enforce a data's "right to be forgotten". Machine unlearning addresses precisely this task, namely the removal of the influence of some specific data, i.e., the forget set, from a trained model. The gold standard for unlearning is to produce the model that would have been learned on only the rest of the training data, i.e., the retain set. Most existing unlearning methods rely on direct access to the retained data, which may not be practical due to privacy or cost constraints. We propose WIN-U, a retained-data free unlearning framework that requires only second order information for the originally trained model on the full data. The unlearning is performed using a single Newton-style step. Using the Woodbury matrix identity and a generalized Gauss-Newton approximation for the forget set curvature, the WIN-U update recovers the closed-form linear solution and serves as a local second-order approximation to the gold-standard retraining optimum. Extensive experiments on various vision and language benchmarks demonstrate that WIN-U achieves SOTA performance in terms of unlearning efficacy and utility preservation, while being more robust against relearning attacks compared to existing methods. Importantly, WIN-U does not require access to the retained data.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Machine unlearning, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 28 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Apr 2026.
Builds on
28 of 35 references.
Closest ancestors · 18
Same direction, newest first
- 2026Gauss-Newton Unlearning for the LLM Era11 Feb
- 2025Erase or Hide? Suppressing Spurious Unlearning Neurons for Robust Unlearning26 Sep
- 2025OpenUnlearning: Accelerating LLM Unlearning via Unified Benchmarking of Methods and Metrics14 Jun
- 2025A Certified Unlearning Approach without Access to Source Data6 Jun
- 2025A Comprehensive Survey of Machine Unlearning Techniques for Large Language Models22 Feb
- 2024Do Unlearning Methods Remove Information from Language Model Weights?11 Oct
- 2024Simplicity Prevails: Rethinking Negative Preference Optimization for LLM Unlearning9 Oct
- 2024Towards Certified Unlearning for Deep Neural Networks1 Aug
- 2024On Large Language Model Continual Unlearning14 Jul
- 2024MUSE: Machine Unlearning Six-Way Evaluation for Language Models8 Jul
- 2024Unlearning or Obfuscating? Jogging the Memory of Unlearned LLMs via Benign Relearning19 Jun
- 2024Machine Unlearning: A Comprehensive Survey13 May
6 more
- 2024Negative Preference Optimization: From Catastrophic Collapse to Effective Unlearning8 Apr
- 2024Hessian-Free Online Certified Unlearning2 Apr
- 2024Eight Methods to Evaluate Robust Unlearning in LLMs26 Feb
- 2024TOFU: A Task of Fictitious Unlearning for LLMs11 Jan
- 2022Knowledge Unlearning for Mitigating Privacy Risks in Language Models4 Oct
- 2022Continual Learning and Private Unlearning24 Mar
Other references · 10
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,714
- 2022Editing Models with Task Arithmeticcited by 1,076
- 2019Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Net: Selective Forgetting in Deep Networkscited by 599
- 2019Certified Data Removal from Machine Learning Modelscited by 512
- 2024The WMDP Benchmark: Measuring and Reducing Malicious Use With Unlearningcited by 488
- 2014New insights and perspectives on the natural gradient methodcited by 435
- 2019Limitations of the Empirical Fisher Approximation for Natural Gradient Descentcited by 213
- 2022If Influence Functions are the Answer, Then What is the Question?cited by 142
Built on by
Not cited yet.