0

Subtract or Replay? Exact Deletion from Language-Model Memory

Exact deletion from persistent language-model memory depends on how that memory represents a record. Addressable influence can be removed by algebraic decrement; influence transformed by later writes inside shared recurrent state requires rebuilding from before the write.

Preview
Year
2026
Hosting
Full text hostedCC-BY-4.0

Cite

Notes

Only stored in your browser.

Attribution

Abstract & full text
arxiv.org/abs/2607.27539CC-BY-4.0
TL;DR
Semantic Scholar
Attribution policy →

Abstract

Exact deletion from persistent language-model memory depends on how that memory represents a record. Addressable influence can be removed by algebraic decrement; influence transformed by later writes inside shared recurrent state requires rebuilding from before the write. We test this distinction in two pretrained models against explicit record-omitted references. First, we replace Gemma 3's global-attention layers with support-vector memory. After low-rank recovery at 1B, decrement and retained-key refit agree at the next-token output to median KL 5.4\times10^{-15} over 31 support-token deletions, with +2.0% perplexity relative to a matched fine-tune. A masked-refit proxy is indistinguishable from the never-ingested floor under elicitation, relearning, sampling, and LiRA attacks. At 4B and 12B, certificate ordering persists but utility cost rises to 11.2% and 44.3%. Second, in a 48B Kimi Linear hybrid, additive writes admit a fixed decrement and diagonal decay a corrected one, whereas the delta rule makes 12--49% of a record's contribution suffix-dependent. Checkpointed rewind-and-replay deletes real clinical records at contexts up to 18,842 tokens, matching never-ingested logits and all recurrent states bit for bit within a deterministic MLX implementation; replaying a correction provides exact amendment. Exact deletion is therefore a property of memory representation: subtract addressable records and replay entangled writes.