Bounding Retraining Equivalence and the Deletion Floor in Materials Machine Unlearning
Authors: Can Polat, Mustafa Kurban, Erchin Serpedin, Hasan Kurban
Organizations: Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar · Department of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey · College of Science and Engineering, Hamad Bin Khalifa University, Doha, Qatar
In materials machine learning, closely related retained structures can sustain accurate property predictions even after removing a specific record, rendering post-deletion prediction error an ambiguous metric for machine unlearning. To resolve this ambiguity, we define the deletion floor as the expected target loss under a specified retraining procedure at the deleted request. Standard indistinguishability constraints yield a sharp interval bounding an update's target loss around this baseline reference. Theoretically, a conditional neighbor bound links a low deletion floor directly to retained fit, prediction regularity, and local label agreement, while an exact ridge identity isolates residual fit from the prediction change induced by record deletion. Empirically, controlled redundancy sweeps show an ≈8× drop in median normalized retraining loss when one retained relative remains after deletion. Across two distinct fitting regimes in a paired Materials Project study, the lower-floor regime also exhibits a larger prediction change on more than 50% of the shared requests. Systematic comparisons against approximate updates and the original model decouple deliberate target suppression from preserved overall model utility. Consequently, request-level unlearning evaluations should report reference loss, prediction change, and retained utility together, interpreting post-deletion accuracy against what retraining itself leaves behind.
Machine unlearning aims to remove the influence of selected training examples without full retraining. Standard evaluations often summarize unlearning quality with aggregate metrics, such as accuracy- and forgetting-based scores, which can hide localized failures. We study this failure mode at the example level by comparing the predictions of an unlearned model to those of the model retrained after deletion. We show that this pointwise discrepancy can be highly non-uniform: for gradient-ascent and random-labeling methods, with and without retain-set fine-tuning, it grows with geometric proximity to the forget set. We call this phenomenon localized collateral forgetting. Our analysis identifies a mechanism behind the effect: surrogate targets used during unlearning can be inconsistent with the local prediction structure induced by retraining, and this inconsistency propagates through shared representations to nearby examples. Motivated by this mechanism, we propose Local Teacher Distillation, a simple mitigation strategy that replaces random targets with soft labels from a small teacher trained only on retained neighbors of the forget set. On CIFAR-100 partial-class deletion, this local teacher brings the unlearned model substantially closer to retraining, especially near the forget set, while maintaining competitive aggregate unlearning metrics.
Polina Dolgova, Sebastian U. Stich
CISPA Helmholtz Center for Information Security · Universität des Saarlandes · Saarbrücken, Germany
Machine unlearning aims to remove the influence of specific training records from a deployed model without retraining from scratch. Current protocols verify this at the output level through membership inference, retain accuracy, and forget-set accuracy, but a model can satisfy all three whilst still encoding forgotten records in its intermediate representations. We introduce RULER, a set of representation-level verification metrics. The oracle-comparative metric M2 measures whether forget-set records occupy the same representational position as in a model retrained without them. The oracle-free metric M4 detects residuals from the unlearned model's internal similarity structure alone, without retraining. Four approximate unlearning methods all pass output-level evaluation, yet under a linear mixed-effects model M2 detects significant residuals in 10 of 12 conditions (p<0.05), with effect sizes growing as the forget fraction increases. A fifth method, Bad Teacher, shows the same residuals despite a different forgetting mechanism. M4 acts as a pre-unlearning diagnostic across tabular, image, clinical text, and face-identity settings: it detects identity-level memorisation in face recognition models where no tested method fully erases the signal.
Georgina Cosma, Axel Finke
Department of Computer Science, Loughborough University, UK · School of Mathematics, Statistics and Physics, Newcastle University, UK
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.
Teresa Pui Yee Yong, Win Kent Ong, Chee Seng Chan
Universiti Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia · VinUniversity, Hanoi, Vietnam