mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Learning What to Forget: Distributional Unlearning for LLM Representation Spaces

arXiv 2609.38929 ↗First posted 30 Sep 2026cs.AI cs.LGcited by 0

On the map: LLM safety and security → Machine unlearning

Abstract (arXiv)

Machine learning systems increasingly face the need to remove the influence of entire data domains, such as toxic language, harmful behavior, or topical content, rather than isolated records. Recent work formalizes this problem as distributional unlearning: selecting a subset of a forget domain whose removal moves the training distribution away from an unwanted population while preserving proximity to the desired one. However, existing analyses often impose parametric assumptions to obtain tractable selection rules. These assumptions may be poorly suited to high-dimensional language-model representations. We introduce textscMamushi, a framework for non-parametric distributional unlearning that ranks forget examples using a probabilistic classifier whose Bayes-optimal logit equals the forget-to-retain log-density ratio (up to an additive class-prior constant). We show that thresholding the population log-density ratio yields the optimal fixed-budget selection rule for our removal--preservation objective and establish a non-asymptotic transfer guarantee relating score-estimation and threshold-calibration errors to degradation from the population-optimal selection rule. Our empirical evaluation spans real-world datasets on toxic-language removal and topical-domain removal regimes using different representations, with textscMamushi achieving a more favorable removal--preservation trade-off than other baselines. Our work shows that textscMamushi can serve as an efficient selection approach for downstream machine unlearning procedures, reducing the number of forget examples required to reach a fixed forgetting target.

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 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2026.

Builds on

28 of 53 references.

Closest ancestors · 11

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Contrastive Representation Shaping for LLM Unlearning29 Jan
  2. 2025Distributional Machine Unlearning via Selective Data Removal20 Jul
  3. 2025Unlearning Isn't Deletion: Investigating Reversibility of Machine Unlearning in LLMs22 May
  4. 2024Simplicity Prevails: Rethinking Negative Preference Optimization for LLM Unlearning9 Oct
  5. 2024Dissecting Fine-Tuning Unlearning in Large Language Models9 Oct
  6. 2024Negative Preference Optimization: From Catastrophic Collapse to Effective Unlearning8 Apr
  7. 2024Rethinking Machine Unlearning for Large Language Models13 Feb
  8. 2024TOFU: A Task of Fictitious Unlearning for LLMs11 Jan
  9. 2023SalUn: Empowering Machine Unlearning via Gradient-based Weight Saliency in Both Image Classification and Generation19 Oct
  10. 2023Who's Harry Potter? Approximate Unlearning in LLMs3 Oct
  11. 2023Towards Unbounded Machine Unlearning20 Feb

Other references · 17

  1. 2020Extracting Training Data from Large Language Modelscited by 2,144
  2. 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,714
  3. 2020Don't Stop Pretraining: Adapt Language Models to Domains and Taskscited by 1,548
  4. 2023The Linear Representation Hypothesis and the Geometry of Large Language Modelscited by 679
  5. 2019Certified Data Removal from Machine Learning Modelscited by 512
  6. 2024The WMDP Benchmark: Measuring and Reducing Malicious Use With Unlearningcited by 488
  7. 2020Null It Out: Guarding Protected Attributes by Iterative Nullspace Projectioncited by 442
  8. 2020Dataset Cartography: Mapping and Diagnosing Datasets with Training Dynamicscited by 423
  9. 2023Data Selection for Language Models via Importance Resamplingcited by 322
  10. 2020Descent-to-Delete: Gradient-Based Methods for Machine Unlearningcited by 303
  11. 2023From Quantity to Quality: Boosting LLM Performance with Self-Guided Data Selection for Instruction Tuningcited by 301
  12. 2021GRAD-MATCH: Gradient Matching based Data Subset Selection for Efficient Deep Model Trainingcited by 269
5 more
  1. 2023LEACE: Perfect linear concept erasure in closed formcited by 254
  2. 2024Is Cosine-Similarity of Embeddings Really About Similarity?cited by 89
  3. 2019Spherical Text Embeddingcited by 49
  4. 2025Language Models May Verbatim Complete Text They Were Not Explicitly Trained Oncited by 20
  5. 2024What Should Embeddings Embed? Autoregressive Models Represent Latent Generating Distributionscited by 10

Built on by

Not cited yet.