Position: The Term "Machine Unlearning" Is Overused in LLMs
arXiv AIArchived 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?)