A Comprehensive Evaluation of LLM Unlearning Robustness under Multi-Turn Interaction

Ruihao Pan, Suhang Wang
2/28/2026
cs.CLcs.AI

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Machine unlearning aims to remove the influence of specific training data from pre-trained models without retraining from scratch, and is increasingly important for large language models (LLMs) due to safety, privacy, and legal concerns. Although prior work primarily evaluates unlearning in static, single-turn settings, forgetting robustness under realistic interactive use remains underexplored. In this paper, we study whether unlearning remains stable in interactive environments by examining two common interaction patterns: self-correction and dialogue-conditioned querying. We find that knowledge appearing forgotten in static evaluation can often be recovered through interaction. Although stronger unlearning improves apparent robustness, it often results in behavioral rigidity rather than genuine knowledge erasure. Our findings suggest that static evaluation may overestimate real-world effectiveness and highlight the need for ensuring stable forgetting under interactive settings.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{pan2026comprehensive,
  title  = {A Comprehensive Evaluation of LLM Unlearning Robustness under Multi-Turn Interaction},
  author = {Ruihao Pan and Suhang Wang},
  year   = {2026},
  eprint = {2603.00823},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00823v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2603.00823.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2603.00823)

Discussion