PreprintCited by 160Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataCryptography and Data SecurityExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)

Certified Data Removal from Machine Learning Models

Open access
Guo, Chuan, Goldstein, Tom, Hannun, Awni, van der Maaten, Laurens·2019·arXiv

Abstract

Good data stewardship requires removal of data at the request of the data's owner. This raises the question if and how a trained machine-learning model, which implicitly stores information about its training data, should be affected by such a removal request. Is it possible to "remove" data from a machine-learning model? We study this problem by defining certified removal: a very strong theoretical guarantee that a model from which data is removed cannot be distinguished from a model that never observed the data to begin with. We develop a certified-removal mechanism for linear classifiers and empirically study learning settings in which this mechanism is practical.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1911.03030

Cites

6 of 6 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?

  • 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 [41]

    The Introduction (p. 1) describes a theoretical guarantee for the paper’s certified-removal mechanism, and Section 3.1 (p. 3) derives it using bounds on the gradient residual and max-divergence. The paper does not establish that model-manipulation methods *usually* provide such guarantees, nor does it characterize them generally as verifiability guarantees. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Approximate unlearning is usually guaranteed by differential privacy techniques, such as (ε, δ)-certified unlearning.

    “This approximation is usually guaranteed by differential privacy techniques, such as ( ε , δ ) -certified unlearning [41, 42].”

    From Machine Unlearning: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [41]

    Section 2 (p. 2) defines (ε, δ)-certified removal and says differential privacy is sufficient for certified removal. Related Work (p. 8) says the definition uses differential privacy’s notion of indistinguishability. The paper does not establish that approximate unlearning is *usually* guaranteed this way; it explicitly says differential privacy is not necessary for certified removal. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The above methods mainly focused on the core problem of empirical risk minimization, where the goal is to find approximate minimizers of the empirical loss on the remaining training dataset after unlearning samples.

    “The above methods mainly focused on the core problem of empirical risk minimization, where the goal is to find approximate minimizers of the empirical loss on the remaining training dataset after unlearning samples [41, 51].”

    From Machine Unlearning: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [41]

    Section 3.1 (p. 2) says the removal mechanism produces a model approximately equal to the minimizer of regularized empirical risk on the dataset without the removed point. But the same passage says this approximation alone can retain information about that point; the paper’s stated goal is certified removal, not simply finding an approximate minimizer. Related Work (p. 8) likewise distinguishes closeness to an optimum from a formal indistinguishability guarantee. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Unlearning methods with a theoretical guarantee are usually based on rich assumptions and can rarely be applied to complex models, since complex deep models usually make those assumptions invalid.

    “Meanwhile, unlearning methods with a theoretical guarantee are usually based on rich assumptions and can rarely be applied to complex models, since complex deep models usually make those assumptions invalid [41, 53].”

    From Machine Unlearning: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Introduction (p. 1) limits this paper’s certified-removal mechanism to regularized linear models with differentiable convex losses, and the Conclusion (p. 9) says removal from models with non-convex losses is unsupported. That supports a limitation for this method, but not the broader claim that theoretically guaranteed unlearning methods usually rely on such assumptions or can rarely be applied to complex models. Section 3.3 (p. 5) also describes ways to use the mechanism with deep-network feature extractors. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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 [41]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. Abadi, M., Chu, A., Goodfellow, I. J., McMahan, H. B., Mironov, I., Talwar, K., and Zhang, L. (2016). Deep learning with differential privacy. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, Vienna, Austria, October 24-28, 2016 , pages 308-318.
  2. Biggio, B., Nelson, B., and Laskov, P. (2012). Poisoning attacks against support vector machines. pages 14671474.
  3. Bourtoule, L., Chandrasekaran, V., Choquette-Choo, C., Jia, H., Travers, A., Zhang, B., Lie, D., and Papernot, N. (2019). Machine unlearning. In arXiv 1912.03817 . · arXiv
  4. Carlini, N., Liu, C., Kos, J., Erlingsson, U., and Song, D. (2019). The secret sharer: Measuring unintended neural network memorization & extracting secrets. In USENIX Security Symposium , pages 267-284.
  5. Cauwenberghs, G. and Poggio, T. A. (2000). Incremental and decremental support vector machine learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 13, Papers from Neural Information Processing Systems (NIPS) 2000, Denver, CO, USA , pages 409-415.
  6. Chaudhuri, K., Monteleoni, C., and Sarwate, A. D. (2011). Differentially private empirical risk minimization. Journal of Machine Learning Research , 12:1069-1109.
  7. Chaudhuri, K., Sarwate, A. D., and Sinha, K. (2012). Nearoptimal differentially private principal components. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25: 26th Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2012. Proceedings of a meeting held December 3-6, 2012, Lake Tahoe, Nevada, United States. , pages 998-1006.
  8. Dai, Z., Yang, Z., Yang, Y., Carbonell, J. G., Le, Q. V., and Salakhutdinov, R. (2019). Transformer-xl: Attentive language models beyond a fixed-length context. In Proceedings of the 57th Conference of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2019, Florence, Italy, July 28- August 2, 2019, Volume 1: Long Papers , pages 2978-2988.
  9. Deng, J., Dong, W., Socher, R., Li, L., Li, K., and Li, F. (2009). Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database. In 2009 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2009), 20-25 June 2009, Miami, Florida, USA , pages 248-255.
  10. Dwork, C. (2011). Differential privacy. Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security , pages 338-340.
  11. Gu, M. and Eisenstat, S. C. (1995). Downdating the singular value decomposition. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. , 16(3):793-810.
  12. He, K., Gkioxari, G., Doll´ ar, P., and Girshick, R. B. (2017). Mask R-CNN. In IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, ICCV 2017, Venice, Italy, October 2229, 2017 , pages 2980-2988.
  13. Karasuyama, M. and Takeuchi, I. (2009). Multiple incremental decremental learning of support vector machines. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22: 23rd Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2009. Proceedings of a meeting held 7-10 December 2009, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. , pages 907-915.
  14. Koh, P. W. and Liang, P. (2017). Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2017, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 6-11 August 2017 , pages 1885-1894.
  15. Liu, D. C. and Nocedal, J. (1989). On the limited memory bfgs method for large scale optimization. Math. Program. , 45(1-3):503-528.
  16. Liu, Z., Wang, Y.-X., and Smola, A. (2015). Fast differentially private matrix factorization. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems , pages 171-178. ACM.
  17. Looks, M., Herreshoff, M., Hutchins, D., and Norvig, P. (2017). Deep learning with dynamic computation graphs. In 5th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Conference Track Proceedings .
  18. Mahajan, D., Girshick, R. B., Ramanathan, V., He, K., Paluri, M., Li, Y., Bharambe, A., and van der Maaten, L. (2018). Exploring the limits of weakly supervised pretraining. In Computer Vision - ECCV 2018 - 15th European Conference, Munich, Germany, September 8-14, 2018, Proceedings, Part II , pages 185-201.
  19. Ren, S., He, K., Girshick, R. B., and Sun, J. (2015). Faster R-CNN: towards real-time object detection with region proposal networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 28: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2015, December 7-12, 2015, Montreal, Quebec, Canada , pages 91-99.
  20. Tai, K. S., Socher, R., and Manning, C. D. (2015). Improved semantic representations from tree-structured long short-term memory networks. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 7th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing of the Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing, ACL 2015, July 26-31, 2015, Beijing, China, Volume 1: Long Papers , pages 1556-1566.
  21. Thomee, B., Shamma, D. A., Friedland, G., Elizalde, B., Ni, K., Poland, D., Borth, D., and Li, L.-J. (2016). Yfcc100m: The new data in multimedia research. Communications of the ACM , 59(2):64-73.
  22. Tsai, C., Lin, C., and Lin, C. (2014). Incremental and decremental training for linear classification. In The 20th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '14, New York, NY, USA - August 24 - 27, 2014 , pages 343-352.
  23. Wang, A., Singh, A., Michael, J., Hill, F., Levy, O., and Bowman, S. R. (2019). GLUE: A multi-task benchmark and analysis platform for natural language understanding. In 7th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2019, New Orleans, LA, USA, May 6-9, 2019 .
  24. Wieting, J., Bansal, M., Gimpel, K., and Livescu, K. (2016). Towards universal paraphrastic sentence embeddings. In 4th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2016, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 2-4, 2016, Conference Track Proceedings .
  25. Xie, S., Girshick, R. B., Doll´ ar, P., Tu, Z., and He, K. (2017). Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural networks. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2017, Honolulu, HI, USA, July 21-26, 2017 , pages 5987-5995.
  26. Yang, Z., Dai, Z., Yang, Y., Carbonell, J. G., Salakhutdinov, R., and Le, Q. V. (2019). Xlnet: Generalized autoregressive pretraining for language understanding. CoRR , abs/1906.08237. · arXiv
  27. Zhao, H., Shi, J., Qi, X., Wang, X., and Jia, J. (2017). Pyramid scene parsing network. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2017, Honolulu, HI, USA, July 21-26, 2017 , pages 6230-6239.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Guo, C., Goldstein, T., Hannun, A., & van der Maaten, L.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Meta (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2985671575
Cited by
160
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Cryptography and Data Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Keywords
data stewardship, linear classifiers, training data, data ownership

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