DUSK: Do Not Unlearn Shared Knowledge
Wonje Jeung, Sangyeon Yoon, Hyesoo Hong, Soeun Kim, Seungju Han, Youngjae Yu, Albert No

TL;DR
DUSK introduces a benchmark for evaluating machine unlearning in realistic scenarios with overlapping data, highlighting current methods' limitations in selectively removing content without damaging shared knowledge.
Contribution
We propose DUSK, a new benchmark with evaluation metrics for unlearning methods in realistic overlapping data scenarios, and analyze recent methods' effectiveness and limitations.
Findings
Most unlearning methods remove surface text but not deeper knowledge.
Existing methods often damage shared factual content during unlearning.
DUSK provides a realistic evaluation framework for unlearning techniques.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in real-world applications, raising concerns about the unauthorized use of copyrighted or sensitive data. Machine unlearning aims to remove such 'forget' data while preserving utility and information from the 'retain' set. However, existing evaluations typically assume that forget and retain sets are fully disjoint, overlooking realistic scenarios where they share overlapping content. For instance, a news article may need to be unlearned, even though the same event, such as an earthquake in Japan, is also described factually on Wikipedia. Effective unlearning should remove the specific phrasing of the news article while preserving publicly supported facts. In this paper, we introduce DUSK, a benchmark designed to evaluate unlearning methods under realistic data overlap. DUSK constructs document sets that describe the same factual…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Conference Withdrawn Submission
- The paper studies a unique split of forget / retain for robust unlearning evaluation, which is a timely and important topic. - The paper is well written, with clear explanations of methodology.
- The scope of the dataset is a bit limited. The authors only extend one existing unlearning benchmark (TOFU). It seems to me that it could also be applied to other benchmarks such as WMDP and MUSE right? - To me, I don't think evaluating the unlearning heuristics that does not contain retain regularization term makes sense. The goal is to test whether model can differentiate between unique knowledge in each split and the shared knowledge in both splits. If the loss does not contain retain regul
(1) Systematization of the task with metrics is good. (2) The paper is written fine for the most part.
(1) I am not sure if there is a need for a new benchmark. Since the paper just puts same profiles (with some rephrasings) in both the retain and forget set, could this task not be done with TOFU itself? The paper also seems to be inspired by their methodology in constructing the benchmark. (2) There are not enough details to justify that the synthetic profiles in the benchmark are non-existent on the internet and couldn't have been used to train models. Can the authors please give their argumen
1. The writing of this paper is very clear and easy to follow. 2. The problem set-up is novel, practical and realistic. The paper considers the case of requesting data removal, and the overlap between knowledge space should be common in the realistic set-up. 3. The evaluation metrics are systematic. They cover different splits of knowledge defined by the problem set-up and different metrics of measuring the knowledge or text acquisition.
1. While the problem setup is novel and interesting, the current study would benefit from additional analyses to make the work more comprehensive and convincing. - The unlearning performance might depends on how frequent the shared knowledge appears in the retained documents. Intuitive, when the shared knowledge appears more frequent, it might be easier to preserve? I think five different types of texts proposed by the paper already quite various -- it is plausible to see what the unlearning
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsTopic Modeling · Data Quality and Management · Mobile Crowdsensing and Crowdsourcing
MethodsSparse Evolutionary Training
