mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Auditing Forgetting in Limited Memory Language Models

arXiv 2607.00605 ↗First posted 1 Jul 2026cs.CL cs.AI cs.LGcited by 2

On the map: LLM safety and security → Machine unlearning

Abstract (arXiv)

Limited Memory Language Models (LMLMs) externalize factual knowledge to a database to enable deletion-based unlearning without retraining. Existing evaluations measure post-deletion correctness in aggregate and cannot tell whether a deleted fact persists through residual parametric memory, alternative retrieval paths, or near-neighbor retrieval artifacts. We propose a causal auditing framework that holds the model fixed and varies the database state at inference time across three interventions: FULL, DEL-ON, and DEL-OFF. The framework decomposes post-deletion behavior into parametric leakage L(f), retrieval-mediated correctness R(f), and a retrieval artifact rate grounded in the inference-time retrieval trace. We apply it to 12,228 alias-closure deletions across thirteen databases, including four adversarial topologies (Base, Alias, Noise, Collision) we construct in three domains, and six prompt formulations. Parametric leakage is near zero in every variant and every prompt style: the model rarely returns the deleted answer in the absence of retrieval. The residual that does survive lives in the retrieval graph: retrieval-mediated correctness and the retrieval artifact rate match within rounding everywhere, so post-deletion correctness is, in our audit, predominantly reconstituted from near-neighbor retrieval. This residual ranges from 0.7% on the released LMLM database to 13.6% on the most adversarial variant, and prompt formulation does not independently control how much of a deleted fact survives. These results suggest that, for this class of LMLM and deletion procedure, the unlearning boundary is drawn primarily by the database administrator rather than by the model.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Machine unlearning, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 12 of its 13 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jul 2026.

Builds on

12 of 13 references.

Closest ancestors · 1

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2024TOFU: A Task of Fictitious Unlearning for LLMs11 Jan

Other references · 11

  1. 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,297
  2. 2020Dense Passage Retrieval for Open-Domain Question Answeringcited by 3,824
  3. 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
  4. 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,189
  5. 2020REALM: Retrieval-Augmented Language Model Pre-Trainingcited by 2,141
  6. 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,282
  7. 2022When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memoriescited by 1,128
  8. 2019Machine Unlearningcited by 1,061
  9. 2022Mass-Editing Memory in a Transformercited by 1,001
  10. 2023Editing Large Language Models: Problems, Methods, and Opportunitiescited by 372
  11. 2025Pre-training Limited Memory Language Models with Internal and External Knowledgecited by 12

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025LLM Unlearning on Noisy Forget Sets: A Study of Incomplete, Rewritten, and Watermarked Data
  2. 2026PreUnlearn: Auditing Collateral Knowledge Damage Before Large Language Model Unlearning
  3. 2026Forget Narrowly, Retain Broadly: Unlearning as an Asymmetric Generalization Problem
  4. 2025Erasing Without Remembering: Implicit Knowledge Forgetting in Large Language Models
  5. 2025REMIND: Input Loss Landscapes Reveal Residual Memorization in Post-Unlearning LLMs
  6. 2025The Erasure Illusion: Stress-Testing the Generalization of LLM Forgetting Evaluation
  7. 2025Unlearning That Lasts: Utility-Preserving, Robust, and Almost Irreversible Forgetting in LLMs
  8. 2025Unlearning Isn't Deletion: Investigating Reversibility of Machine Unlearning in LLMs