PreprintCited by 50Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataEthics and Social Impacts of AIPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 22 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet.

On the Necessity of Auditable Algorithmic Definitions for Machine Unlearning

Open access

Abstract

Machine unlearning, i.e. having a model forget about some of its training data, has become increasingly more important as privacy legislation promotes variants of the right-to-be-forgotten. In the context of deep learning, approaches for machine unlearning are broadly categorized into two classes: exact unlearning methods, where an entity has formally removed the data point's impact on the model by retraining the model from scratch, and approximate unlearning, where an entity approximates the model parameters one would obtain by exact unlearning to save on compute costs. In this paper, we first show that the definition that underlies approximate unlearning, which seeks to prove the approximately unlearned model is close to an exactly retrained model, is incorrect because one can obtain the same model using different datasets. Thus one could unlearn without modifying the model at all. We then turn to exact unlearning approaches and ask how to verify their claims of unlearning. Our results show that even for a given training trajectory one cannot formally prove the absence of certain data points used during training. We thus conclude that unlearning is only well-defined at the algorithmic level, where an entity's only possible auditable claim to unlearning is that they used a particular algorithm designed to allow for external scrutiny during an audit.

Overview

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.2110.11891

Cites

22 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

  • Those one-sided methods seldom provide strong verification of the unlearning process's effectiveness.

    “Those one-sided methods seldom provide strong verification of the unlearning process's effectiveness [44, 109, 110].”

    From Machine Unlearning: A Survey (2024) · cites this paper as [110]

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [2][2] Lucas Bourtoule, Varun Chandrasekaran, Christopher A Choquette-Choo, Hengrui Jia, Adelin Travers, Baiwu Zhang, David Lie, and Nicolas Papernot. Machine unlearning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.03817 , 2019. - · arXiv
  2. [15][15] Pang Wei Koh and Percy Liang. Understanding blackbox predictions via influence functions. In International Conference on Machine Learning , pages 1885-1894. PMLR, 2017. -
  3. [22][22] Ilia Shumailov, Zakhar Shumaylov, Dmitry Kazhdan, Yiren Zhao, Nicolas Papernot, Murat A. Erdogdu, and Ross Anderson. Manipulating sgd with data ordering attacks. Proceedings of the 35th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , 2021. -

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Thudi, A., Jia, H., Shumailov, I., & Papernot, N.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3208439705
Cited by
48
References
22
Citations by year
2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research
  • Government of Canada
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Privacy-Preserving Technologies in Data
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
machine unlearning, audibility, right to be forgotten, data privacy, approximate unlearning, model retraining, deep 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