aiqbench analysis
This paper introduces TRIAGE, a novel evaluation framework that moves beyond simple behavioral benchmarks to analyze the internal parameter changes caused by machine unlearning. By measuring shifts in Fisher information and Hessian curvature, it reveals how different algorithms create varying degrees of collateral damage to semantically related knowledge. The study demonstrates that identical forgetting behaviors can mask fundamentally different impacts on a model's underlying representation space.
LLM Unlearning Evaluation with TRIAGE
arXiv:2609.32103v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models can memorize private or harmful information, motivating machine unlearning methods that remove targeted knowledge while preserving other capabilities. However, existing evaluations rely primarily on behavioral benchmarks, which assess \emph{whether} a model appears to forget but provide limited insight into \emph{how} unlearning changes the model or affects related knowledge. We introduce \textit{TRIAGE} (\textit{Tripartite Representation-internal Introspection for Adjacency Gap Evaluation}), a benchmark-agnostic evaluation framework for characterizing these changes. TRIAGE uses diagonal approximations of the Fisher information and Hessian to measure changes in parameter sensitivity and local curvature, and utilizes a Forget / \emph{Adjacent-Retain} / \emph{Generic-Retain} partition to quantify an \emph{adjacency gap} in semantically related knowledge. Based on the magnitude and distribution of these changes, TRIAGE further classifies each algorithm's update as \emph{no-op}, \emph{partially localized}, \emph{collateral dominant}, or \emph{globally destructive}. Across 12 unlearning methods, four language models, and the WMDP, TOFU, and MUSE benchmarks, we find that methods with similar behavioral forgetting can produce substantially different internal changes and patterns of collateral damage. These signatures also vary across models and benchmarks, indicating that the effects of unlearning are not determined solely by the unlearning algorithm. TRIAGE can be applied alongside existing unlearning benchmarks to complement behavioral evaluation with a model-internal view of how unlearning reshapes the model's parameter space and affects retained knowledge.
Abstract:Large language models can memorize private or harmful information, motivating machine unlearning methods that remove targeted knowledge while preserving other capabilities. However, existing evaluations rely primarily on behavioral benchmarks, which assess \emph{whether} a model appears to forget but provide limited insight into \emph{how} unlearning changes the model or affects related knowledge. We introduce \textit{TRIAGE} (\textit{Tripartite Representation-internal Introspection for Adjacency Gap Evaluation}), a benchmark-agnostic evaluation framework for characterizing these changes. TRIAGE uses diagonal approximations of the Fisher information and Hessian to measure changes in parameter sensitivity and local curvature, and utilizes a Forget / \emph{Adjacent-Retain} / \emph{Generic-Retain} partition to quantify an \emph{adjacency gap} in semantically related knowledge. Based on the magnitude and distribution of these changes, TRIAGE further classifies each algorithm's update as \emph{no-op}, \emph{partially localized}, \emph{collateral dominant}, or \emph{globally destructive}. Across 12 unlearning methods, four language models, and the WMDP, TOFU, and MUSE benchmarks, we find that methods with similar behavioral forgetting can produce substantially different internal changes and patterns of collateral damage. These signatures also vary across models and benchmarks, indicating that the effects of unlearning are not determined solely by the unlearning algorithm. TRIAGE can be applied alongside existing unlearning benchmarks to complement behavioral evaluation with a model-internal view of how unlearning reshapes the model's parameter space and affects retained knowledge.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.32103 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.32103v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.32103 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 307 words
Related coverage
What the "Spotless" Mind Remembers: How Knowledge Entanglement Shapes What Leaks After Unlearning in LLMs
arXiv · Aug 28, 2026
Does Forgetting Transfer Across Modalities? A Real-World Benchmark for Cross-Modal Knowledge Unlearning Evaluation
arXiv · Aug 5, 2026
Are We Really Measuring Forgetting? Pitfalls in Evaluating Machine Unlearning for Multimodal LLMs
arXiv · Oct 15, 2026
Open-MMUnlearning: Unifying Methods and Evaluation for MLLM Unlearning
arXiv · Oct 8, 2026