Cited by 396Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningCryptography and Data Security

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Net: Selective Forgetting in Deep Networks

Open access
Golatkar, Aditya, Achille, Alessandro, Soatto, Stefano·2020·2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

Abstract

We explore the problem of selectively forgetting a particular subset of the data used for training a deep neural network. While the effects of the data to be forgotten can be hidden from the output of the network, insights may still be gleaned by probing deep into its weights. We propose a method for "scrubbing" the weights clean of information about a particular set of training data. The method does not require retraining from scratch, nor access to the data originally used for training. Instead, the weights are modified so that any probing function of the weights is indistinguishable from the same function applied to the weights of a network trained without the data to be forgotten. This condition is a generalized and weaker form of Differential Privacy. Exploiting ideas related to the stability of stochastic gradient descent, we introduce an upper-bound on the amount of information remaining in the weights, which can be estimated efficiently even for deep neural networks.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr42600.2020.00932

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most of the above schemes focus on relatively simple machine learning problems, such as linear logistic regression, or complex models with special assumptions.

    “Second, most of the above schemes focus on relatively simple machine learning problems, such as linear logistic regression, or complex models with special assumptions [40, 41, 43, 51].”

    From Machine Unlearning: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

    Section 5.1 tests the method on linear logistic regression. The Contributions and Deep Network Scrubbing sections also describe applying it to deep neural networks, while the Contributions section limits the optimality proof to the quadratic case; the Additional information section says the local forgetting bound assumes algorithmic stability. The paper therefore supports the examples of a simple problem and assumptions for a complex model, but cannot establish that *most* of the schemes cited together have this limitation. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Model manipulation methods usually give a verifiability guarantee using theory-based and information bound-based methods.

    “Significantly, model manipulation methods usually give a verifiability guarantee using theory-based and information bound-based methods [40, 41, 43].”

    From Machine Unlearning: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

    Section 2 derives a KL-divergence bound that guarantees robustness to any readout function, and Section 5.2 says the authors’ proposed methods provide an upper bound on remaining information. The paper supports a theory- and information-bound-based guarantee for its own forgetting methods, but does not establish that model manipulation methods usually provide such guarantees. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The higher the degree of similarity in model confidence, the better the effect of the unlearning process.

    “The higher the degree of similarity, the better the effect of the unlearning process.”

    From Machine Unlearning: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

    Section 5.3 says the scrubbed model’s confidence distribution should resemble that of a model that has never seen the forgotten data. But Section 5.4 warns that favorable output readouts can coexist with very little information actually being removed, so confidence similarity alone does not establish better unlearning. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Unlearning based on model shifting usually removes the impact of the unlearning dataset by calculating the influence on the model.

    “Unlearning based on model shifting usually removes the impact of the unlearning dataset by calculating the influence on the model [40, 43].”

    From Machine Unlearning: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

    Section 3.2 describes using gradients and Hessians of the cohort to be forgotten to calculate how its removal affects the model. But Section 4 says the paper’s practical Fisher method does not take the calculated weight-shifting step; it adds noise to the weights instead. The paper therefore supports the general idea of calculating the cohort’s effect, but not the claim that model-shifting methods usually remove it this way. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The information bound metric relies on KL-divergence to measure the information remaining about the unlearning dataset within the model after the unlearning process.

    “The information bound metric relies on KL-divergence to measure the information remaining about the unlearning dataset within the model after the unlearning process.”

    From Machine Unlearning: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [40]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Golatkar, A., Achille, A., & Soatto, S.
Affiliations
University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
2020 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2020-06
Pages
9301-9309
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2985940692
Cited by
394
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 96 · 2025: 115 · 2024: 75 · 2023: 56 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1
FWCI
10.22
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Office of Naval Research (ONR N00014-17-1-2072, N00014-19-1-2229, ONR-N00014, N00014-17-1, N00014-19, N00014-19-1-2066, N00014-17-1-2072, N00014, N00014-17)
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-17, W911NF-17-1-0304, W911NF, ARO W911NF-17-1-0304)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptography and Data Security
Keywords
selective forgetting, deep neural network, differential privacy, information erasure, information leakage, privacy-preserving machine learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review