Cited by 53Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

Unlearn What You Want to Forget: Efficient Unlearning for LLMs

Open access
Chen, Jiaao, Yang, Diyi·2023·Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved significant progress from pre-training on and memorizing a wide range of textual data, however, this process might suffer from privacy issues and violations of data protection regulations.As a result, the ability to easily remove data related to individual users from such models while not deteriorating their predictive quality after the removal becomes increasingly important.To address these issues, in this work, we propose an efficient unlearning framework that could efficiently update LLMs without having to retrain the whole model after data removals, by introducing lightweight unlearning layers learned with a selective teacher-student objective into the transformers.In addition, we introduce a fusion mechanism to effectively combine different unlearning layers that learns to forget different sets of data to handle a sequence of forgetting operations.Experiments on classification and generation tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed methods compared to the state-of-the-art baselines 1 .

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.738

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A few authors use the success of a Membership Inference Attack (MIA) as a metric.

    “Membership Inference Attack (MIA) : A few authors (Wang et al 2023; Chen and Yang 2023; Pawelczyk et al 2023) use the success of a MIA as a metric.”

    From Digital forgetting in large language models: a survey of unlearning methods (2025) · cites this paper as Chen and Yang 2023

  • Chen and Yang (2023), Wang et al (2023), Pawelczyk et al (2023), Ni et al (2023), and Pochinkov and Schoots (2023) evaluate retaining on remaining samples of the same dataset used for unlearning.

    “Same dataset but different samples . Chen and Yang (2023); Wang et al (2023); Pawelczyk et al (2023); Ni et al (2023); Pochinkov and Schoots (2023) evaluate retaining on the remaining samples of the same dataset used for unlearning.”

    From Digital forgetting in large language models: a survey of unlearning methods (2025) · cites this paper as Chen and Yang (2023)

  • Reported runtime values of unlearning methods range from minutes to hours or even longer than a day.

    “Reported values range from minutes (Wang et al 2023; Yao et al 2023 ; Limisiewicz and Mareček 2022; Jang et al 2022; Yu et al 2023) to hours (Chen and Yang 2023) or even longer than a day (Lu et al 2022 ).”

    From Digital forgetting in large language models: a survey of unlearning methods (2025) · cites this paper as Chen and Yang 2023

  • Epoch information is only reported by a subset of works and can only be used when comparing identical models, data and forgetting tasks, which is rarely the case.

    “However, this information is only reported by a subset of works (Eldan and Russinovich 2023; Chen and Yang 2023; Jang et al 2022; Yao et al 2023; Yu et al 2023; Wu et al 2023; Ni et al 2023; Ilharco et al 2022) and it can only be used when comparing identical models, data and forgetting tasks, which is rarely the case.”

    From Digital forgetting in large language models: a survey of unlearning methods (2025) · cites this paper as Chen and Yang 2023

  • Some researchers prefer a second, more controllable but less realistic scenario, where forgetting is applied to an LLM fine-tuned with a dataset that includes the undesired knowledge.

    “Due to these limitations, some researchers, such as Eldan and Russinovich (2023); Chen and Yang (2023); Borkar (2023); Wu et al (2023); Wang et al (2023) prefer a second, more controllable but less realistic scenario, where forgetting is applied to an LLM fine-tuned with a dataset that includes the undesired knowledge.”

    From Digital forgetting in large language models: a survey of unlearning methods (2025) · cites this paper as Chen and Yang 2023

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Lucas Bourtoule, Varun Chandrasekaran, Christopher A Choquette-Choo, Hengrui Jia, Adelin Travers, Baiwu Zhang, David Lie, and Nicolas Papernot. 2021. Ma- chine unlearning. In 2021 IEEE Symposium on Secu- rity and Privacy (SP), pages 141-159. IEEE.
  2. Eli Chien, Chao Pan, and Olgica Milenkovic. 2023. Ef- ficient model updates for approximate unlearning of graph-structured data. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations.
  3. PMLR.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, J., & Yang, D.
Affiliations
  • Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2023
Pages
12041-12052
OpenAlex
W4389519496
Cited by
52
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 8
FWCI
9.21
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
National Science Foundation (2247357, 2308994)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
large language models, data deletion, privacy, data protection, fusion mechanism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review