arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2607.27539

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

Vishwajith Ramesh
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Certifying that a deletion did what it declared does not certify that the record left no trace: a small distance to the implementation's own reference does not imply a small distance to the state that never stored the record. This paper installs a deletion interface into a pretrained language model and measures both distances. We retrofit a support-vector memory gate into the global attention layers of a frozen Gemma 3 without changing a weight. Each stored record owns a set of rows, and deleting it removes those rows and re-solves only the storage problems they touched. At 4B the retrofit admits exactly the records the base model recalls, at a paired perplexity cost under $2\%$; the same recipe fails at 1B and 12B, which we report. Every executed deletion agreed with an independently reconstructed reference on every registered probe, and under sampling, targeted elicitation, related-data relearning, and membership inference an edited record was about as hard to extract as one never stored, while a prompt instruction to ignore the same record left it fully extractable. On $96$ long conversational histories with decoded answers, the edited assistant disclosed the deleted record in $15$ histories against $13$ for a rebuild that never stored it and $54$ for the instruction, and a blinded review of the outputs the matcher had cleared found that its misses were aliases or normalization failures of the answer, with no paraphrase among them. The edit also suppressed the deleted answer below the never-stored level, a signature an auditor can read. The result is a retrofit that makes a frozen model's memory addressable, a certificate for what the retrofit does, and a measurement of the distance that remains to the stronger guarantee; which of the two a system can offer is decided when the memory is written.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Vishwajith Ramesh. 2026-07-30. Can an AI Assistant Really Forget? Auditable Deletion from Addressable Memory. https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27539

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗