Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The authors challenge the assumption that knowledge localization dictates optimal model unlearning targets, showing that high-accuracy storage localization aligns with the best intervention on only 17 of 36 evaluated targets. To resolve this, they introduce an Intervention Score that ranks parameter groups by predicted unlearning impact minus collateral damage, coupled with Dynamic Intervention Re-ranking (DIR-R) to adaptively update active parameter subsets mid-optimization. Across Natural-TOFU and the LACUNA benchmark, DIR-R consistently outperforms static baselines, boosting terminal utility by up to +0.848 in Negative Preference Optimization settings without collateral degradation.
Where an LLM stores a fact is rarely where you should erase it: high-precision storage localization picks the optimal unlearning intervention on just 17 of 36 targets, exposing a core blind spot in mechanistic model editing.
Many localized large language model (LLM) unlearning methods select a small parameter subset from a localization signal and keep it fixed during optimization. The parameters most associated with a target, however, need not be the best ones to update, and candidate interventions can change value as optimization proceeds. In a controlled experiment, a storage-localization score reaches an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.981, yet storage identity agrees with the better intervention on only 17/36 targets, while low-rank adaptation (LoRA) wins 35/36. We introduce Intervention Score, which ranks editable groups by the predicted effect of the actual unlearning update while accounting for collateral damage, and use it to form the static intervention-value baseline (Static-IV). We then introduce selective dynamic intervention re-ranking (DIR-R), which revisits that subset only when a calibrated probe justifies the comparison. On the Natural-TOFU dataset, our method has positive descriptive margins in 19/20 comparisons between methods and objectives, although several are near zero. On the LACUNA localization-precision benchmark, our mean terminal utility is higher in all six negative preference optimization (NPO) and SimNPO comparisons: NPO margins range from +0.431 to +0.848, and SimNPO margins range from +0.503 to +0.571. The gradient-difference (GradDiff) objective reveals substantial field dependence. Relative to Static-IV, the primary four-field GradDiff evaluation has six wins, six ties, and no losses, with mean and median paired gains of +0.165 and +0.0025. The evidence supports separating localization, initial intervention selection, and checkpoint-dependent support revision.