CyberIntel ⬡ News
★ Saved ◆ Cyber Reads
← Back ◬ AI & Machine Learning Jun 29, 2026

Position: The Term "Machine Unlearning" Is Overused in LLMs

arXiv AI Archived Jun 29, 2026 ✓ Full text saved

arXiv:2606.27379v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models increasingly face demands to "forget" training data, knowledge, or behaviors due to regulatory deletion obligations, copyright/licensing disputes, and safety or product-policy requirements. This position paper argues that machine unlearning is overused as a term in LLM research and should be reserved for dataset-defined deletion: removing the training influence of a precisely specified forget set such that the resulting mode

Full text archived locally
✦ AI Summary · Claude Sonnet


    Computer Science > Computation and Language [Submitted on 8 May 2026] Position: The Term "Machine Unlearning" Is Overused in LLMs Sangyeon Yoon, Yeachan Jun, Albert No Large language models increasingly face demands to "forget" training data, knowledge, or behaviors due to regulatory deletion obligations, copyright/licensing disputes, and safety or product-policy requirements. This position paper argues that machine unlearning is overused as a term in LLM research and should be reserved for dataset-defined deletion: removing the training influence of a precisely specified forget set such that the resulting model is approximately indistinguishable from retraining without that data. We contend that many tasks currently labeled "unlearning" (e.g., refusal for harmful requests, entity/knowledge removal, or targeted suppression) pursue different, often policy-dependent objectives and therefore require different terminology and baselines (e.g., alignment, suppression, editing, obfuscation). We further argue that this confusion is not cosmetic: because papers make different implicit guarantees under the same label, metrics and benchmarks are frequently reused outside their intended scope, rewarding surface-level non-disclosure (e.g., low ROUGE/forget accuracy) even when retraining-equivalence is not tested and derived capabilities remain. We conclude by calling for stricter terminology tied to explicit guarantees and reference models, and for evaluations that match the claimed objective. Comments: 13 pages; ICML 2026 Position Paper Track. Sangyeon Yoon and Yeachan Jun contributed equally Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG) Cite as: arXiv:2606.27379 [cs.CL]   (or arXiv:2606.27379v1 [cs.CL] for this version)   https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.27379 Focus to learn more Submission history From: Yeachan Jun [view email] [v1] Fri, 8 May 2026 11:57:43 UTC (57 KB) Access Paper: HTML (experimental) view license Current browse context: cs.CL < prev   |   next > new | recent | 2026-06 Change to browse by: cs cs.AI cs.LG References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Export BibTeX Citation Bookmark Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Demos Related Papers About arXivLabs Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)
    💬 Team Notes
    Article Info
    Source
    arXiv AI
    Category
    ◬ AI & Machine Learning
    Published
    Jun 29, 2026
    Archived
    Jun 29, 2026
    Full Text
    ✓ Saved locally
    Open Original ↗