Trajectory-Guided Forget-Recover Network for Continual LLM Unlearning

Haoran Luo; Jiapu Wang; Jingwei Zhang; Qinggang Zhang; Qing Yang; Xinghe Cheng; Zezheng Wu

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 38 references

Trajectory-Guided Forget-Recover Network for Continual LLM Unlearning

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Channel-level risk trajectories keep LLM unlearning effective across a stream of forget requests.

desk verdict A genuinely new mask-trajectory/recovery mechanism for continual unlearning, but the core selection rule ignores the sign of the forget-loss gradient and needs fixing before the empirical claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.03123 v1 pith:FQUVIU5G submitted 2026-08-04 cs.LG cs.AI

Zezheng Wu , Xinghe Cheng , Qinggang Zhang , Haoran Luo , Jiapu Wang , Qing Yang , Jingwei Zhang This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AI

keywords machineunlearningcontinuallargelanguagemodelschannelmaskingtrajectory-awarerisktrackingcapacityrecoveryretainedutilityprivacy

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Continual unlearning for large language models faces two linked failures: an unlearning step can push the knowledge it was supposed to erase into other pathways, so it resurfaces later, and each suppression step consumes capacity needed for tasks the model should keep. This paper proposes TFR-Net, which tracks each channel's forget risk across requests, suppresses only channels that are persistently target-related rather than transient hotspots, and then reactivates dormant channels that are safe and useful. Each proposed update is accepted only if retained utility stays within a tolerance. On four datasets, including a privacy benchmark, the method achieves a better forgetting–utility balance than existing continual and one-shot unlearning baselines. If the mechanism holds, it suggests unlearning can be managed as an evolving structural mask rather than as repeated weight edits.

What carries the argument

The trajectory-aware pathway priority $\Gamma_t(c)$ is the central object: a per-channel score whose numerator rewards persistent risk and repeated high-risk hits, and whose denominator penalizes abrupt risk changes and uncertainty, so it separates persistent target-related channels from transient hotspots. It drives multiplicative suppression factors $\alpha_t(c)$ and, together with retention and risk thresholds, selects the recovery candidate pool. The other load-bearing mechanism is the retain-guarded acceptance rule, which commits or atomically rolls back the entire tentative mask and trajectory memory depending on whether the retain loss meets a tolerance.

What would settle it

Restore each dormant channel one at a time in a final TFR-Net model, measure the actual change in forget-set accuracy, and compare it with the channel's trajectory and recovery scores; if high-scoring dormant channels do not disproportionately bring back forgotten knowledge, the central relevance assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

TFR-Net establishes that the long-horizon unlearning problem can be cast as joint control of a channel mask trajectory. It maintains a mask over transformer projection channels with frozen backbone weights. For each request it computes a risk score $\chi_t(c)$ by contrasting forget-set and retain-set activation-gradient signals, then maintains smoothed risk memory $\mu_t(c)$, high-risk hit memory $\omega_t(c)$, and temporal uncertainty $\sigma^2_t(c)$ to form a trajectory priority $\Gamma_t(c)$. Channels whose trajectory marks them as persistently target-related are suppressed; transient hotspots are spared. Dormant channels with low current and historical risk and positive retained-utility contribution are partially reactivated, and the whole structural state is committed only when the retain loss stays within tolerance. Across Arithmetic, OpenBookQA, BoolQ, and TOFU streams the method reports a more favorable forgetting–utility trade-off, with a mean trade-off gain of 8.34 percentage points over the best baseline.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes a channel that is already suppressed still yields a trustworthy relevance score from the gradient of the loss through its masked activation; if that score is noise when masks are near zero, the trajectory priorities and the recovery candidate pool are built on unreliable signal.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If TFR-Net is correct, an LLM can keep forgetting specific knowledge across many requests without finetuning the backbone weights; the entire unlearning state lives in per-channel masks.
Suppressing only trajectory-persistent target channels should reduce the re-emergence of forgotten knowledge, because alternative pathways that only transiently carry the target are left intact.
Reactivating low-risk dormant channels under a retain guard should slow the cumulative capacity loss that limits long horizons, so later requests keep more usable model capacity.
The reported TOFU results imply that structural unlearning can improve membership-inference privacy while preserving model utility, rather than trading one for the other.
Ablations without recovery or retain guidance show larger endpoint failures at Request 20, so the improvement is mainly long-horizon stability rather than single-request strength.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

My inference: the same trajectory-tracking idea could be adapted to sequential model editing or safety alignment updates, where the same self-repair phenomenon appears after targeted weight changes.
My inference: because the backbone stays frozen and only masks change, the method may translate to deployments where the weights are protected and updates arrive as inference-time masks, though the paper does not test this deployment mode.
My inference: the retain-loss guard is a generic commit-or-rollback condition that could be bolted onto other structural unlearning schemes; a direct test would be applying TFR-Net's recovery candidate rules to a different suppression method.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

The thing to know about arXiv:2608.03123 is that it proposes a genuinely new structural mechanism for continual LLM unlearning—persistent channel masks with trajectory-based risk tracking and a retain-guarded recovery step—and shows consistent trade-off improvements on three continual streams. But the central selection rule has a sign problem that the paper never addresses, and the empirical support is thinner than the tables suggest.

What's new: the mask trajectory across requests, distinguishing persistent target-related channels from transient hotspots, and reactivating dormant channels under a retain-loss guard. That framing is a real step beyond O3, ALKN, ASU and LLM-Eraser. The structural analyses in Figures 3 and 4—target relevance redistribution and cumulative capacity loss—are useful and motivate the design. The ablation in Table 2, while lacking error bars, does show the components matter for stability at R20.

Where it gets soft. The risk score in Eq. (10) is the absolute value of the gradient of the loss with respect to the masked activation, which equals |∂L_f/∂m|. Suppression reduces m for the largest such scores. But to first order, reducing m changes L_f by -δ ∂L_f/∂m. If ∂L_f/∂m > 0, suppression lowers the forget loss, i.e., improves the model's accuracy on the forget set—the opposite of what unlearning should do. Using the magnitude discards the sign, so the top-priority channels can be exactly the wrong ones. The contrast in Eq. (11) and the recovery filters in Eqs. (20)-(21) all consume this magnitude-only score, so the issue propagates through the whole pipeline. The retain guard in Eq. (24) bounds retained-utility loss; it does not fix the direction problem. The weak BoolQ forgetting (F Avg 63.25) is consistent with mis-selection, though not proof. The reader's dormant-channel concern is plausible but secondary; the sign issue hits active channels too.

Also, no code, no released data, no error bars, and evaluation on 100 examples per task. The ablation and main results could be seed-dependent. Many hyperparameters are unstated.

Who should read this: anyone working on continual unlearning or model editing will want to know the trajectory-recover idea. But I would not take the central claim at face value until the sign issue is addressed—either by deriving the correct selection rule or by adding an experiment that shows sign-aware scores make no difference (which would itself be surprising). A serious referee should ask for that, plus code and variance reporting.

Recommendation: send to peer review, but conditional on the authors fixing or at least directly testing the sign problem. This is not a desk reject; the idea is worth engaging.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces TFR-Net, a mask-only method for continual LLM unlearning. It maintains persistent per-channel masks on selected projection channels, computes per-request channel-level risk scores from forget and retain batches, tracks temporal risk statistics across requests, suppresses channels with persistent target relevance, and reactivates dormant low-risk channels under a retain-loss guard. The claim is that this trajectory-guided suppression plus retain-guarded recovery improves the trade-off between unlearning effectiveness and retained utility compared with six baselines. Experiments are reported on LLaMA-7B over three continual unlearning streams (Arithmetic, OpenBookQA, BoolQ) plus a TOFU privacy evaluation, with the main metric being a harmonic-mean trade-off. The paper also includes an ablation study and a cross-request structural analysis of channel relevance and capacity loss.

Significance. Continual LLM unlearning is an important and timely problem, and the paper identifies two plausible structural phenomena: target relevance shifts across channels over requests, and repeated suppression depletes usable capacity. If the proposed mechanism worked as described, a mask-based, backbone-free unlearning scheme with a retain guard would be a useful contribution to the field. The ablation study gives some support for the separate roles of recovery, retain guidance, and historical risk. However, the central selection mechanism has a sign-error issue that can select channels whose suppression improves forget-set accuracy rather than degrading it, and the empirical evaluation lacks error bars, code, and a complete hyperparameter specification. For these reasons the main claim is not yet established.

major comments (3)

[Methodology, Eq. (10)-(11) and Eq. (18)] The channel score in Eq. (10) is defined with an absolute value: psi_q_t(c) is the magnitude of the mean over tokens of a_t,c times the gradient of L_q with respect to the masked activation. Since the masked activation is tilde_h = m(c) a, the score is |partial L_q / partial m(c)|. The suppression rule in Eq. (18) decreases m(c) for channels in the selected set P_t. To first order, suppressing channel c by delta changes the forget loss by approximately -delta * m(c) * partial L_f / partial m(c). When partial L_f / partial m(c) > 0, suppression reduces L_f and therefore improves forget-set accuracy, which is the opposite of unlearning. Because Eq. (11), Eq. (17), and the recovery filters in Eqs. (20)-(21) all consume the magnitude-only score, they cannot distinguish channels whose suppression helps forgetting from channels whose suppression hurts it. The retain-loss guard in Eq. (24) only constrains retained utility and does not correct the direction of the forget-loss gradient. The method should use a signed score or an explicit sign-aware selection rule, and the authors should empirically verify that selected channels indeed increase L_f when suppressed.
[Methodology, Eq. (10) and Eq. (20)] The manuscript asserts that the activation-gradient score 'remains informative for dormant channels even when their current masked contributions are small'. This assertion is load-bearing for the recovery candidate pool in Eq. (20) and the recovery score in Eq. (21), because dormant channels have mask values near zero. When m(c) is near zero, the gradient with respect to the masked activation can be large or arbitrary, and no argument is given that the resulting score reflects the channel's true relevance to forgetting or retention. This should be supported either by a theoretical derivation or by a direct experiment, for example comparing the proposed score-based recovery against random recovery and against an oracle that uses the true effect of unmasking on forget and retain losses.
[Experiments, Tables 1-3 and Implementation Details] The main empirical claim is that TFR-Net 'consistently' achieves a better trade-off, but the reported numbers come from single runs with no error bars, no confidence intervals, and no significance tests. Evaluation uses only 100 examples per task at four checkpoints, which is a very small sample for a 7B-parameter model. In addition, no code is released and several hyperparameters are left unspecified, including the per-dataset pruning budget, the exact values of beta_mu, beta_sigma, beta_omega, lambda_omega, delta_t, tau_d, tau_f, tau_h, tau_g, delta_rec, and the coefficients in Eqs. (11) and (21). This prevents independent verification of the central trade-off claim and should be addressed in a revision.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Table 1] The abstract and the text state that TFR-Net improves the mean trade-off over the best baseline by 8.34 percentage points, while Table 1 reports a Gain vs. Best of +8.35; the numbers should be reconciled.
[Problem Definition, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) is described as a 'conceptual cumulative objective', but the relation between this objective and the actual mask update rule is not formalized; the authors should clarify whether the procedure optimizes this objective or merely approximates it.
[Evaluation Metrics] The trade-off metric is defined only as the 'harmonic mean of forgetting effectiveness and retained utility' without an explicit formula; the exact definition should be given so readers can interpret Table 1 and Table 2.
[Implementation Details] The text says 'the maximum global pruning budget is set to 128 channels per request according to the dataset' and later mentions 'epsilon_r = 0.05', but the per-dataset budgets and the relation between epsilon_r and the two tolerances epsilon_rel and epsilon_abs in Eq. (24) are not specified.
[Table 2] The ablation table would benefit from error bars or repeated-seed results, since several entries differ by only a few percentage points and the qualitative conclusions rely on those small differences.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: TFR-Net is an empirical mask-update heuristic, self-contained against external benchmarks.

full rationale

TFR-Net's derivation is self-contained: the method is a mask-update heuristic whose components are defined directly from the frozen backbone's activations and gradients (Eqs. 9-10) and from its own historical statistics (Eqs. 12-17). Suppression (Eq. 18), recovery (Eqs. 20-23), and the atomic retain guard (Eqs. 24-25) are optimization heuristics for the stated cumulative objective (Eq. 3), not predictions derived from fitted inputs. The claimed benchmark advantage is an empirical result against external baselines (Table 1) and internal ablations (Table 2); no parameter is fitted to the target trade-off and then reported as a prediction. The self-citations in the reference list (e.g., Zhang et al. 2024a; Zhang et al. 2025a; Wang et al. 2024; Yan et al. 2026) appear only in the Introduction and Related Work for context and are not load-bearing for the method's design or conclusions. The only notable unsupported assertion is the claim that Eq. (10) remains informative for dormant channels, which is an assumption about gradient signal rather than a circular reduction; a sign-of-gradient concern would be a correctness risk, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 14 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on many free hyperparameters and on domain assumptions about the informativeness of channel-level gradients; no external evidence or ablation validates the key Eq. (10) assumption beyond aggregate results.

free parameters (14)

Risk margin gamma
Eq. (11) sets the threshold above which forget-retain score contrast counts as risk; value not reported.
Forget/retain score weights zeta_f, zeta_r
Eq. (11) relative weighting; no values or sensitivity given.
Memory decay beta_mu
Eq. (12) smoothing of risk memory; value not reported.
Variance memory decay beta_sigma
Eq. (15) controls temporal uncertainty estimate.
High-risk hit memory decay beta_omega
Eq. (16) controls repeated high-risk occurrence memory.
High-risk hit weight lambda_omega
Eq. (17) weights repeated hits in the suppression priority.
Suppression strength delta_t
Eq. (18) multiplicative mask reduction for selected channels; value not reported.
Dormant threshold tau_d
Eqs. (7) and (20) define dormancy and recovery pool eligibility.
Current-risk recovery threshold tau_f
Eq. (20) filters recovery candidates by current risk.
Historical-risk recovery threshold tau_h
Eq. (20) filters candidates by prior trajectory priority.
Recovery score threshold tau_g
Eq. (22) threshold for selecting recovery channels.
Recovery strength delta_rec
Eq. (23) fraction of mask value restored.
Retain-loss tolerances epsilon_rel, epsilon_abs = epsilon_r = 0.05
Eq. (24) acceptance criteria for atomic retention guard; only epsilon_r=0.05 mentioned in Implementation Details.
Per-dataset pruning budget and sparsity = 128 channels/request, sparsity 0.03-0.04
Implementation Details: 'maximum global pruning budget is set to 128 channels per request according to the dataset'.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Channel-level activation-gradient scores from Eq. (10) reliably locate target-related computation even for masked or dormant channels.
Used to compute risk and recovery; no validation beyond the assertion in the text.
domain assumption Persistent versus transient channel behavior can be inferred from the smoothed risk trajectories, variance, and high-risk hit counts in Eqs. (12) through (17).
Central to the persistent suppression decision; no theoretical or empirical verification of trajectory sufficiency.
domain assumption Mask-based structural suppression of a subset of projection channels can achieve meaningful unlearning in an LLM.
The entire method never updates backbone parameters; the unlearning effect rests on this structural intervention.
domain assumption The retain-loss tolerance in Eq. (24) is a sufficient guard for retained utility.
A single scalar retain-loss check is used to accept or rollback all structural changes; no analysis of failure modes.
domain assumption Benchmark tasks and metrics, including forget-set accuracy, retain-set accuracy, and harmonic-mean trade-off, are valid measures of unlearning and utility.
The empirical conclusion depends entirely on these evaluation choices, which are taken from prior work.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trajectory-Guided Forget-Recover Network for Continual LLM Unlearning." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FQUVIU5G

@misc{pith2026260803123,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trajectory-Guided Forget-Recover Network for Continual LLM Unlearning},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FQUVIU5G}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.03123}
}

read the original abstract

Machine unlearning aims to eliminate the influence of sensitive data on a model. In the real world, unlearning requests arrive continually, which gives rise to two challenges. First, an unlearning intervention may redistribute target-related computation across remaining pathways, allowing previously forgotten knowledge to re-emerge. Second, repeated unlearning interventions may progressively reduce the model capacity needed to preserve retained utility. To address these challenges, we propose the Trajectory-guided Forget-Recover Network (TFR-Net). TFR-Net tracks channel-level risk across requests. It separates persistent target-related channels from transient hotspots and suppresses only the persistent ones. TFR-Net also recovers model capacity by reactivating dormant channels. These channels make strong contributions to retained utility and show low current and historical forget risk. The recovery is accepted only when retained-utility degradation remains within a predefined tolerance. Experiments on four datasets show that TFR-Net consistently achieves a more favorable trade-off between unlearning effectiveness and retained utility than representative baselines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.03123 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overview of TFR-Net. TFR-Net performs continual unlearning through persistent pathway masking, self-repair [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Cross-request composition of the Top-K channels ranked by target relevance on BoolQ. Core denotes channels in the Req. 1 Top-K set; Non-core denotes channels first observed in the current request; Recurring denotes non-core channels observed in earlier requests [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Capacity dynamics on BoolQ. Capacity Loss is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[1]

Chongyang Gao and Lixu Wang and Kaize Ding and Chenkai Weng and Xiao Wang and Qi Zhu , booktitle=

work page
[2]

Saleh Zare Zade and Xiangyu Zhou and Sijia Liu and Dongxiao Zhu , booktitle=

work page
[3]

Shengming Zhang and Le Zhang and Jingbo Zhou and Zhi Zheng and Hui Xiong , booktitle=

work page
[4]

Yuanshun Yao and Xiaojun Xu and Yang Liu , booktitle=

work page
[5]

2024 , address=

Jin Yao and Eli Chien and Minxin Du and Xinyao Niu and Tianhao Wang and Zezhou Cheng and Xiang Yue , booktitle=. 2024 , address=

work page 2024
[6]

Xinyin Ma and Gongfan Fang and Xinchao Wang , booktitle=

work page
[7]

Aleksandar Makelov and Georg Lange and Atticus Geiger and Neel Nanda , booktitle=

work page
[8]

2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy , pages=

Cao, Yinzhi and Yang, Junfeng , title=. 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy , pages=

work page 2015

Show all 38 references

[9]

2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy , pages=

Bourtoule, Lucas and Chandrasekaran, Varun and Choquette-Choo, Christopher A and Jia, Hengrui and Travers, Adelin and Zhang, Baiwu and Lie, David and Papernot, Nicolas , title=. 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy , pages=

2021
[10]

Nguyen, Thanh Tam and Huynh, Thanh Trung and Ren, Zhao and Nguyen, Phi Le and Liew, Alan Wee-Chung and Yin, Hongzhi and Nguyen, Quoc Viet Hung , journal=
[11]

Zhang, Yang and Hu, Zhiyu and Bai, Yimeng and Wu, Jiancan and Wang, Qifan and Feng, Fuli , journal=
[12]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

Tim Dettmers and Artidoro Pagnoni and Ari Holtzman and Luke Zettlemoyer , title=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=
[13]

Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning , pages =

Liu, Shih-Yang and Wang, Chien-Yi and Yin, Hongxu and Molchanov, Pavlo and Wang, Yu-Chiang Frank and Cheng, Kwang-Ting and Chen, Min-Hung , title =. Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Machine Learning , pages =. 2024 , series =

2024
[14]

He Zhang and Bang Wu and Xiangwen Yang and Xingliang Yuan and Xiaoning Liu and Xun Yi , title =
[15]

He Zhang and Xingliang Yuan and Shirui Pan , title =
[16]

Proceedings of the IEEE , volume =

He Zhang and Bang Wu and Xingliang Yuan and Shirui Pan and Hanghang Tong and Jian Pei , title =. Proceedings of the IEEE , volume =
[17]

Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages=

Jang, Joel and Yoon, Dongkeun and Yang, Sohee and Cha, Sungmin and Lee, Moontae and Logeswaran, Lajanugen and Seo, Minjoon , title=. Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages=
[18]

30th USENIX Security Symposium , pages=

Carlini, Nicholas and Tram. 30th USENIX Security Symposium , pages=
[19]

The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , pages=

Fan, Chongyu and Liu, Jiancheng and Zhang, Yihua and Wong, Eric and Wei, Dennis and Liu, Sijia , title=. The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , pages=
[20]

and Bansal, Mohit and Koyejo, Sanmi and Liu, Yang , journal=

Liu, Sijia and Yao, Yuanshun and Jia, Jinghan and Casper, Stephen and Baracaldo, Nathalie and Hase, Peter and Yao, Yuguang and Liu, Chris Yuhao and Xu, Xiaojun and Li, Hang and Varshney, Kush R. and Bansal, Mohit and Koyejo, Sanmi and Liu, Yang , journal=
[21]

Li, Yuyuan and Chen, Chaochao and Zheng, Xiaolin and Liu, Junlin and Wang, Jun , journal=
[22]

Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

Wu, Xinwei and Li, Junzhuo and Xu, Minghui and Dong, Weilong and Wu, Shuangzhi and Bian, Chao and Xiong, Deyi , title=. Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=

2023
[23]

Li, Nathaniel and Pan, Alexander and Gopal, Anjali and Yue, Summer and Berrios, Daniel and others , booktitle=
[24]

Simplicity Prevails: Rethinking Negative Preference Optimization for

Chongyu Fan and Jiancheng Liu and Licong Lin and Jinghan Jia and Ruiqi Zhang and Song Mei and Sijia Liu , booktitle=. Simplicity Prevails: Rethinking Negative Preference Optimization for
[25]

Boolq: Exploring the surprising difficulty of natural yes/no questions , author=. Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the north American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: Human language technologies, volume 1 (long and short papers) , pages=

2019
[26]

Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=

Language models are few-shot learners , author=. Advances in neural information processing systems , volume=
[27]

Proceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , pages=

Can a suit of armor conduct electricity? a new dataset for open book question answering , author=. Proceedings of the 2018 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing , pages=

2018
[28]

and Guan, Melody Y

Ginart, Antonio A. and Guan, Melody Y. and Valiant, Gregory and Zou, James Y. , title=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages=
[29]

Adaptive Localization of Knowledge Negation for Continual

Abudukelimu Wuerkaixi and Qizhou Wang and Sen Cui and Wutong Xu and Bo Han and Gang Niu and Masashi Sugiyama and Changshui Zhang , booktitle=. Adaptive Localization of Knowledge Negation for Continual
[30]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

LLM circuit analyses are consistent across training and scale , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=
[31]

Pratyush Maini and Zhili Feng and Avi Schwarzschild and Zachary Chase Lipton and J Zico Kolter , booktitle=
[32]

Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , pages=

Large language models-guided dynamic adaptation for temporal knowledge graph reasoning , author=. Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , pages=
[33]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02457 , year=

A survey on temporal knowledge graph completion: Taxonomy, progress, and prospects , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.02457 , year=

arXiv
[34]

Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=

GraphRAG-induced dual knowledge structure graphs for personalized learning path recommendation , author=. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume=
[35]

Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 , pages=

Effective instruction parsing plugin for complex logical query answering on knowledge graphs , author=. Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025 , pages=

2025
[36]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.24236 , year=

CAGE: Cognitive Attribution Graphs for Faithful Inline Citation Generation in Long-Form Question Answering , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.24236 , year=

arXiv
[37]

Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=

Hybrid-collaborative augmentation and contrastive sample adaptive-differential awareness for robust attributed graph clustering , author=. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=
[38]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01290 , year=

Prompting large language models with partial knowledge for answering questions with unseen entities , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.01290 , year=

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Chongyang Gao and Lixu Wang and Kaize Ding and Chenkai Weng and Xiao Wang and Qi Zhu , booktitle=

work page

[2] [2]

Saleh Zare Zade and Xiangyu Zhou and Sijia Liu and Dongxiao Zhu , booktitle=

work page

[3] [3]

Shengming Zhang and Le Zhang and Jingbo Zhou and Zhi Zheng and Hui Xiong , booktitle=

work page

[4] [4]

Yuanshun Yao and Xiaojun Xu and Yang Liu , booktitle=

work page

[5] [5]

2024 , address=

Jin Yao and Eli Chien and Minxin Du and Xinyao Niu and Tianhao Wang and Zezhou Cheng and Xiang Yue , booktitle=. 2024 , address=

work page 2024

[6] [6]

Xinyin Ma and Gongfan Fang and Xinchao Wang , booktitle=

work page

[7] [7]

Aleksandar Makelov and Georg Lange and Atticus Geiger and Neel Nanda , booktitle=

work page

[8] [8]

2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy , pages=

Cao, Yinzhi and Yang, Junfeng , title=. 2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy , pages=

work page 2015