Papers › From Theft to Bomb-Making: The Ripple Effect of Unlearning in Defending Against...

From Theft to Bomb-Making: The Ripple Effect of Unlearning in Defending Against Jailbreak Attacks

3 Jul 2024arXiv:2407.02855archive 2025-07-28

Zhexin Zhang, Junxiao Yang, Yida Lu, Pei Ke, Shiyao Cui, Chujie Zheng, Hongning Wang, Minlie Huang

Large Language Models (LLMs) are known to be vulnerable to jailbreak attacks. An important observation is that, while different types of jailbreak attacks can generate significantly different queries, they mostly result in similar responses that are rooted in the same harmful knowledge (e.g., detailed steps to make a bomb). Consequently, unlearning-based approaches have been proposed to mitigate jailbreak attacks by directly removing harmful knowledge from the model. In this paper, we identify a novel ripple effect of unlearning, wherein LLMs can implicitly unlearn harmful knowledge that was not explicitly introduced during the unlearning phase (e.g., a model unlearning the steps for theft may also implicitly unlearn the steps for making a bomb). Through over 100 experimental runs spanning multiple models, attack strategies, and defense methods, we empirically validate this phenomenon, which makes unlearning-based methods able to decrease the Attack Success Rate on unseen data from more than 70% to less than 10% with only 100 training samples. Further analysis reveals that the strong generalization ability of unlearning may stem from the intrinsic relatedness among harmful responses across harmful questions (e.g., response patterns, shared steps and actions in response, and similarity among their learned representations in the LLM). We also discuss the potential limitations of unlearning and the observed ripple effect. We hope our research could contribute to a deeper understanding of unlearning. Our code is available at https://github.com/thu-coai/SafeUnlearning.

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

7 samples harvested; 1 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 6 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 7 of the 7 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from thu-coai/safeunlearning. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections