RULER: Representation-Level Verification of Machine Unlearning

Machine unlearning is commonly evaluated by matching a retrained oracle on trained probes. In a controlled nonce-fact testbed with a matched retraining reference, we find this criterion can favor methods that retain held-out knowledge: candidates it rates adequate score held-out forget facts $-2.82$ nats below the never-learned level (cluster CI $[-3.16,-2.48]$). We recast unlearning as restoration to the matched reference and audit oracle-free screens and certificate-style criteria across 45 model-seed cells spanning five open architecture families. The reference itself falsifies an absolute retain/round-trip certificate: the injected model, which retains the retain set by construction, fails the fixed retain threshold in 41/45 cells and its own round trip in 31/45, and the reference fully certifies in only 1/45. A base-anchored held-out screen remains strong as a selective necessary test: on a sealed challenge suite it rejects the injected model in 45/45 cells, accepts the reference in 44/45, and partially detects entity-routing suppression (35/45); it is a necessary test with measured sensitivity, not a sufficiency certificate. A damage-relative recalibration anchored to the reference's own operating point certifies a small subset in 15/45 cells; where it does not abstain, its picks lie within retraining noise (0.80 nats) on the axes it optimizes, while the common trained-probe criterion sits 5.17 nats away (a supporting comparison, not a head-to-head benchmark). A fixed-magnitude logit-suppression attack defeats the full forward battery in 12/45 cells, so forward-only certification is not sound; our method is an empirical selective test for methods-as-produced. An identifiability theorem delimits which facts admit an oracle-free forget threshold at all, with TOFU as the predicted boundary case.

Machine unlearning (MU) is commonly judged by output forgetting, such as low forget-set accuracy or reduced logit-level membership inference. But if output-level success can coexist with retraining-inconsistent residuals in representation space, what kind of forgetting are current evaluations actually certifying? We study this question through retraining-consistent representation forgetting, using the retrained model (i.e., trained from scratch without the forget data) as an operational reference for correct forgetting. Across multiple unlearning methods, datasets, and models, our theoretical analysis and empirical results show that standard output-level evaluation can systematically overestimate the success of unlearning. Under this stronger lens, current methods often appear forgotten at the output layer while exhibiting a structured mismatch relative to retraining. They partially align with retraining on forget samples, remain more inconsistent on retain samples, and leave residual discrepancy concentrated along retraining-related directions rather than diffuse in representation space. This structured mismatch is characterized by forget/retain asymmetry, directional mismatch, and concentrated residuals along retraining-related directions. These results suggest that current MU is often evaluated for apparent forgetting rather than retraining-consistent forgetting. More broadly, retraining reveals what output forgetting hides.

Machine unlearning has been extensively studied in response to growing privacy concerns and regulatory requirements. However, auditing whether unlearning algorithms have truly erased the influence of specific data remains an open challenge. The lack of reliable and practical auditing mechanisms can lead to critical privacy risks, such as residual information leakage. This paper initiates a systematic investigation into whether existing unlearning algorithms can truly forget the designated data. We propose the first practical and general-purpose auditing framework for machine unlearning, inspired by the concept of proof of ignorance. Our framework addresses the key practicality limitations of existing methods by eliminating the need for retraining-from-scratch baselines, avoiding the training of large numbers of shadow models, and requiring no intrusive intervention in the original training process. To evaluate the effectiveness of our framework, we first conduct validation experiments to verify its soundness and completeness. We then perform comprehensive experiments across six datasets and ten representative unlearning methods. The results demonstrate that our framework reliably distinguishes between successful and failed unlearning. In particular, we observe that retraining-based and fine-tuning-based methods can achieve effective unlearning, even when the target data remain in the original dataset. In contrast, de-optimization-based methods fail to achieve true unlearning and instead degrade the model's performance. Fisher/Hessian-based methods also fail to unlearn requested data, even formal certification is provided. Moreover, we show that our framework is robust against fake unlearning attempts and generalizes well to large language models.