PreprintCited by 29Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataStochastic Gradient Optimization TechniquesMachine Learning and Data Classification

Machine Unlearning via Algorithmic Stability

Open access
Ullah, Enayat, Mai, Tung, Rao, Anup, Rossi, Ryan, Arora, Raman·2021·arXiv

Abstract

We study the problem of machine unlearning and identify a notion of algorithmic stability, Total Variation (TV) stability, which we argue, is suitable for the goal of exact unlearning. For convex risk minimization problems, we design TV-stable algorithms based on noisy Stochastic Gradient Descent (SGD). Our key contribution is the design of corresponding efficient unlearning algorithms, which are based on constructing a (maximal) coupling of Markov chains for the noisy SGD procedure. To understand the trade-offs between accuracy and unlearning efficiency, we give upper and lower bounds on excess empirical and populations risk of TV stable algorithms for convex risk minimization. Our techniques generalize to arbitrary non-convex functions, and our algorithms are differentially private as well.

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.2102.13179

Cites

23 of 23 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?

  • When users revoke permissions over training data, merely removing those data from the original training dataset is not sufficient because attackers can still reveal user information from trained models.

    “When users revoke permissions over some training data, it is not sufficient to merely remove those data from the original training dataset, since the attackers can still reveal user information from the trained models [28].”

    From Machine Unlearning: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Introduction (p. 3) says that merely deleting user data from a database without undoing computations derived from it is insufficient, and applies this concern to trained machine-learning models. It frames this as a reasonable expectation, however, and does not say that attackers can reveal user information from a trained model after the data is removed. The adversary discussion in §4.2 (p. 11) concerns disclosure of algorithmic state, not that specific claim. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

3 of the 26 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. [AZ17] Zeyuan Allen-Zhu. Katyusha: The first direct acceleration of stochastic gradient methods. The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 18(1):8194-8244, 2017.
  2. [BCCC + 19] Lucas Bourtoule, Varun Chandrasekaran, Christopher Choquette-Choo, Hengrui Jia, Adelin Travers, Baiwu Zhang, David Lie, and Nicolas Papernot. Machine unlearning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.03817 , 2019. · arXiv
  3. [BE02] Olivier Bousquet and André Elisseeff. Stability and generalization. Journal of machine learning research , 2(Mar):499-526, 2002.
  4. [Chu91] Alexander Mikhailovich Chudnov. Game-theoretical problems of synthesis of signal generation and reception algorithms. Problemy Peredachi Informatsii , 27(3):57-65, 1991.
  5. [GGVZ19] Antonio Ginart, Melody Guan, Gregory Valiant, and James Y Zou. Making ai forget you: Data deletion in machine learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , pages 3518-3531, 2019.
  6. [Vil08] Cédric Villani. Optimal transport: old and new , volume 338. Springer Science & Business Media, 2008.
  7. [WS16] Blake E Woodworth and Nati Srebro. Tight complexity bounds for optimizing composite objectives. In D. Lee, M. Sugiyama, U. Luxburg, I. Guyon, and R. Garnett, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 29. Curran Associates, Inc., 2016.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ullah, E., Mai, T., Rao, A., Rossi, R., & Arora, R.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Adobe Systems (United States) (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
Pages
4126-4142
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3134127610
Cited by
26
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2021: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
  • Conference on Learning Theory
Funders
National Science Foundation (CAREER, 1943251, 1838139)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Stochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
machine unlearning, algorithm stability, Markov chain coupling, excess risk bounds, non-convex optimization, differential privacy

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