Sources

542 sources

Source

Ramesh (2026)

Can an AI Assistant Really Forget? Auditable Deletion from Addressable Memory

arXiv

Find It

DOI

Abstract

An assistant can stop repeating a fact without removing it from memory. To study this difference, we install a support-vector gate in frozen Gemma 3 and record which stored keys and values belong to each exchange. A deletion request excludes the exchange's rows from the long-range readout and recalculates the gate on what remains. We check this operation against an independent refit, then compare it with running the model again on the conversation without the exchange. This second comparison matters because the exchange may already have influenced surviving memory rows. At 4B, the gated model passed checks for recall and feasible deletion on the same six of eight records admitted by the base model, at a perplexity cost under 2%. Admission fell at the smaller and larger checkpoints with the same configuration. The edited memory agreed closely with the local refit on the registered probes, and the model disclosed fewer deleted answers than when simply instructed to forget. However, an attack evaluated separately for each record could still distinguish edited memory from memory that never stored the record. Excluding an exchange's own rows therefore provides a way to edit and audit conversation memory, while leaving a measurable difference from rebuilding it without that exchange. Additional paired studies found no update-speed advantage for the current FP32 proxy and retained-answer matching below half in every tested condition.

Reference

Ramesh, V. (2026). Can an AI Assistant Really Forget? Auditable Deletion from Addressable Memory. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.27539. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2607.27539

What Rests on This

1 mechanism cites this source. Each finding below is quoted as it appears on that mechanism's own page.

Motivated Forgetting Memory Processes

  • Measured in AI

    Saved memory: a 2026 preprint on one model family (Gemma 3) found that deleting an exchange from the assistant's stored memory disclosed fewer deleted answers than simply instructing the model to forget, yet an attack could still tell the edited memory from one that never held the record