Cited by 53Privacy-Preserving Technologies in DataAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningCloud Data Security Solutions

Athena: Probabilistic Verification of Machine Unlearning

Open access
Sommer, David M., Song, Liwei, Wagh, Sameer, Mittal, Prateek·2022·Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies

Abstract

The right to be forgotten, also known as the right to erasure, is the right of individuals to have their data erased from an entity storing it. The status of this long held notion was legally solidified recently by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union. As a consequence, there is a need for mechanisms whereby users can verify if service providers comply with their deletion requests. In this work, we take the first step in proposing a formal framework, called Athena, to study the design of such verification mechanisms for data deletion requests – also known as machine unlearning – in the context of systems that provide machine learning as a service (MLaaS). Athena allows the rigorous quantification of any verification mechanism based on hypothesis testing. Furthermore, we propose a novel verification mechanism that leverages backdoors and demonstrate its effectiveness in certifying data deletion with high confidence, thus providing a basis for quantitatively inferring machine unlearning. We evaluate our approach over a range of network architectures such as multi-layer perceptrons (MLP), convolutional neural networks (CNN), residual networks (ResNet), and long short-term memory (LSTM) and over 6 different datasets. We demonstrate that: (1) our approach has minimal effect on the accuracy of the ML service but provides high confidence verification of unlearning, even if multiple users employ our system to ascertain compliance with data deletion requests, and (2) our mechanism is robust against servers deploying state-of-the-art backdoor defense methods. Overall, our approach provides a foundation for a quantitative analysis of verifying machine unlearning, which can provide support for legal and regulatory frameworks pertaining to users’ data deletion requests.

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 · 10.56553/popets-2022-0072

Cites

71 of 71 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?

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: 8

  1. G. D. P. Regulation, "Regulation (eu) 2016/679 of the euro- pean parliament and of the council of 27 april 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and re- pealing directive 95/46," Official Journal of the European Union (OJ), vol. 59, no. 1-88, p. 294, 2016.
  2. Z. Xi, R. Pang, S. Ji, and T. Wang, "Graph backdoor," in USENIX Security Symposium, 2021.
  3. J. van den Hooff, D. Lazar, M. Zaharia, and N. Zeldovich, "Vu- vuzela: Scalable private messaging resistant to traffic analysis," in ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles (SOSP), 2015.
  4. E. Ghosh, O. Ohrimenko, and R. Tamassia, "Authenticated range & closest point queries in zero-knowledge." IACR Cryptol- ogy ePrint Archive, vol. 2015, p. 1183, 2015.
  5. G. Cohen, S. Afshar, J. Tapson, and A. van Schaik, "EMNIST: Extending MNIST to handwritten letters," in 2017 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN), 2017.
  6. K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, "Deep residual learning for image recognition," in IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR), 2016, pp. 770-778.
  7. S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhuber, "Long short-term memory," Neural computation, vol. 9, no. 8, pp. 1735-1780, 1997.
  8. F. MacWilliams and N. Sloane, The Theory of Error-Correcting Codes, ser. Mathematical Studies. Elsevier Science, 1977. [Online]. Available: https://books.google.com/books?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sommer, D. M., Song, L., Wagh, S., & Mittal, P.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Venue
Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies
Published
2022-07
Volume
2022
Issue
3
Pages
268-290
ISSN
2299-0984 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4286256876
Cited by
51
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4
FWCI
3.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1553437, 1704105)
  • Zurich Information Security and Privacy Center
  • Office of Naval Research
  • Army Research Office
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 › Information Systems › Cloud Data Security Solutions
Keywords
machine unlearning, right to be forgotten, machine learning as a service, backdoor attacks, backdoor defense, General Data Protection Regulation, hypothesis testing, privacy compliance

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