# Are We Really Measuring Forgetting? Pitfalls in Evaluating Machine Unlearning for Multimodal LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.19613 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.19613/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in MLLM training and visual instruction tuning, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models.
- Builds on 9 of its 17 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 14 Oct 2026.

## Placed in

- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [MLLM training and visual instruction tuning](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/mllm-training-and-visual-instruction-tuning/)
- LLM safety and security / [Machine unlearning](https://mlsanity.com/safety/machine-unlearning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 9 of 9)

- [Improved Baselines with Visual Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03744/) (2023)
- [TOFU: A Task of Fictitious Unlearning for LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.06121/) (2024)
- [Negative Preference Optimization: From Catastrophic Collapse to Effective Unlearning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.05868/) (2024)
- [Unrolling SGD: Understanding Factors Influencing Machine Unlearning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.13398/) (2021)
- [Protecting Privacy in Multimodal Large Language Models with MLLMU-Bench](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.22108/) (2024)
- [CLEAR: Character Unlearning in Textual and Visual Modalities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.18057/) (2024)
- [Benchmarking Vision Language Model Unlearning via Fictitious Facial Identity Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.03554/) (2024)
- [OFFSIDE: Benchmarking Unlearning Misinformation in Multimodal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.22535/) (2025)
- [PULSE: Practical Evaluation Scenarios for Large Multimodal Model Unlearning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.01271/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

As machine unlearning for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) rapidly advances, rigorous evaluation of its effectiveness becomes increasingly important. However, existing benchmarks largely inherit evaluation protocols from text-only unlearning and overlook the unique challenges of unlearning in multimodal settings. In this work, we identify three major pitfalls that may lead to misleading conclusions: the lack of heldout evaluation to distinguish genuine concept-wise forgetting from instance-wise overfitting, the reliance on synthetic, fine-tuned knowledge rather than real-world knowledge acquired during pre-training, and unfair method comparisons caused by applying the same training settings to different unlearning methods. To address these challenges, we introduce GEMMU (Generalizable Evaluation for Multimodal Machine Unlearning), a benchmark built on real-world knowledge and a principled evaluation protocol. Re-evaluating representative unlearning methods under GEMMU reveals substantial generalization gaps and challenges conclusions drawn from previous benchmarks. Our findings highlight the importance of rigorous evaluation for advancing multimodal machine unlearning and provide guidelines for future benchmark design.