The DOI matches its DataCite record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Can Agents Forget When Asked? A Benchmark for Memory Unlearning in LLM Agents
Abstract
Long-term memory has become a core component of large language model (LLM) agents. As agents accumulate personal information over long-term use, users increasingly ask them to delete sensitive or outdated facts. A memory system should honor such requests. It should remove exactly what was requested and keep the rest of its memory intact. However, existing memory benchmarks evaluate only memory writing, retrieval, and organization, so whether agents can forget at the user's explicit request remains under-evaluated. To address this gap, we propose Bemula, the first benchmark dedicated to memory unlearning. It comprises 50 multi-session dialogue instances, 135 forget requests of six types, and 1,742 test questions. Each dialogue has a control version without the requests, so that only systems that have stored the target can earn credit for forgetting. Across the paired versions, five test suites measure storage, removal of the requested information, preservation of unrelated memories, relearning of similar facts, and resistance to extraction attacks. On Bemula, we evaluate six mainstream memory systems under three backbone LLMs, together with the Full Context LLM on two of them. The results are negative. Across all evaluated systems and backbones, no system passes more than 1.5% of forget requests end to end, and most pass none at all. These systems either leave the requested information extractable under simple attacks or delete far more than requested. Memory unlearning therefore remains an open challenge for agent memory design. We release our data and code at https://github.com/Nboxff/bemula-benchmark.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
AWQ: Activation-aware Weight Quantization for On-Device LLM Compression and Acceleration
Lin, J., Tang, J., Tang, H., Yang, S., Xiao, G., & Han, S. (2025) · GetMobile: Mobile Computing and Communications · doi:10.1145/3714983.3714987 · Cited by 274
MemGPT: Towards LLMs as Operating Systems
Packer, C., Wooders, S., Lin, K., Fang, V., Patil, S. G., Stoica, I., & Gonzalez, J. E. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.08560 · Cited by 64
Kang, J., Ji, M., Zhao, Z., & Bai, T. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2506.06326 · Cited by 23
Kang, J., Ji, M., Zhao, Z., & Bai, T. (2025) · Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.emnlp-main.1318 · Cited by 23
From Recall to Forgetting: Benchmarking Long-Term Memory for Personalized Agents
Uddin, M. N., Shubham, K., Blanco, E., Baral, C., & Wang, G. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2026 · doi:10.18653/v1/2026.findings-acl.1337 · Cited by 11
Zep: A Temporal Knowledge Graph Architecture for Agent Memory
Rasmussen, P., Paliychuk, P., Beauvais, T., Ryan, J., & Chalef, D. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.13956 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Xie, B., Wang, C., Ge, G., Wang, S., Niu, F., Zhang, H., & Wang, W.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- arXiv
- 2610.18052
- References
- 6
- Type
- Preprint
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.