Hidden not Deleted: How Networks Suppress Entangled Features
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Concept erasure methods that operate via linear projection assume that features occupy separable subspaces. We show this assumption fails under dense superposition: when two features are forced into an antipodal pair sharing a single subspace, state-of-the-art linear erasure destroys both, not just the target. Networks trained with gradient descent instead solve this problem non-linearly, but not uniformly: they converge to one of two distinct circuit-level solutions depending on initialization, which we call mirror and shadow solutions. We map this bifurcation as a function of feature entanglement, show it reflects a stable attractor structure rather than an artifact of our setup, and use targeted causal interventions to demonstrate that both solutions leave a substantial, measurable trace of the erased feature's representation intact, recoverable through a single scalar patch rather than requiring any further training. This mirrors a failure mode recently observed empirically in LLM unlearning, where suppression rather than deletion allows forgotten knowledge to resurface; our results offer a mechanistic, causally-validated account of why that failure mode occurs.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 23 of its 41 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 23 Sep 2026.
Builds on
23 of 41 references.
References · 23
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
- 2016Gaussian Error Linear Units (GELUs)cited by 3,502
- 2022Locating and Editing Factual Associations in GPTcited by 2,691
- 2023Sparse Autoencoders Find Highly Interpretable Features in Language Modelscited by 1,420
- 2016Man is to Computer Programmer as Woman is to Homemaker? Debiasing Word Embeddingscited by 1,312
- 2022Interpretability in the Wild: a Circuit for Indirect Object Identification in GPT-2 smallcited by 1,165
- 2019Machine Unlearningcited by 1,061
- 2023Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretabilitycited by 839
- 2023Towards Automated Circuit Discovery for Mechanistic Interpretabilitycited by 724
- 2022Grokking: Generalization Beyond Overfitting on Small Algorithmic Datasetscited by 629
- 2024TOFU: A Task of Fictitious Unlearning for LLMscited by 533
11 more
- 2024The WMDP Benchmark: Measuring and Reducing Malicious Use With Unlearningcited by 509
- 2020Null It Out: Guarding Protected Attributes by Iterative Nullspace Projectioncited by 455
- 2021Causal Abstractions of Neural Networkscited by 422
- 2019Bias in Bios: A Case Study of Semantic Representation Bias in a High-Stakes Settingcited by 349
- 2023LEACE: Perfect linear concept erasure in closed formcited by 267
- 2022Hidden Progress in Deep Learning: SGD Learns Parities Near the Computational Limitcited by 187
- 2022Linear Adversarial Concept Erasurecited by 101
- 2022Kernelized Concept Erasurecited by 48
- 2025Unlearning Isn't Deletion: Investigating Reversibility of Machine Unlearning in LLMscited by 42
- 2023Robust Concept Erasure via Kernelized Rate-Distortion Maximizationcited by 11
- 2025Erase or Hide? Suppressing Spurious Unlearning Neurons for Robust Unlearningcited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026SCOPE: Entanglement Frontier Escape for Source-Free Class Unlearning
- 2026You Can't Have It Both Ways: Concept Entanglement Limits Diffusion Model Unlearning
- 2026Machine Unlearning under Retain-Forget Entanglement
- 2026Entangled Representations Amplify Collateral Damage in Unlearning
- 2026No Concept Escapes the Audit: Auditing-Aware Unlearning for Verifiable Concept Erasure in Diffusion Models
- 2026Orthogonal Concept Erasure for Diffusion Models
- 2026Understanding Empirical Unlearning with Combinatorial Interpretability
- 2026Representational Simplicity and Circuit Size Dissociate in a Threshold-Dependent Way: A Controlled Test via Adversarial Training