Modeling Deletion Requests in Machine Unlearning

Various machine unlearning techniques have been developed in response to privacy legislation requirements, enabling individuals to exercise their legal right to have their data $D_f$ removed from a machine learning model. This process is typically accomplished via the use of an unlearning function denoted as $U$. Existing methods focus on designing an intricate $U$ to unlearn $D_f \subset D$ from a previous model $A(D)$, so that the unlearned model performs as closely as possible to the retrained model $A(D \setminus D_f)$. However, these methods often suffer from high computational costs when dealing with massive training data, as the complex structures of $U$ become a bottleneck even for models with fewer parameters. Inspired by Learning to Optimize, we introduce the first learning-based model-agnostic approach, Learning-to-UnLearn (L2UL). Our core insight is to shift from manually designing $U$ to learning the unlearning behaviors from a distribution perspective, thereby acquiring a simple and efficient $U$ via learning. Our experimental results demonstrate that the accuracy achieved by L2UL is comparable to that of retraining while exhibiting impressive efficiency, particularly in data-intensive scenarios. Furthermore, we validate the performance and scalability of our method on larger models ResNet.

Certified machine unlearning ensures the proximity between the unlearned model and a model retrained without the data to be forgotten. Extending this framework to sequential deletion requests, typically arriving as groups of variable size (e.g., all records of one user or of coordinated users), is challenging. For unlearning methods based on fine-tuning on the retain sets, this leads to either degrading performance or increasing computation as the number of unlearning requests grows. For independent successive requests, we instead certify each model release against a counterfactual unlearning trajectory in which the group being deleted never took part. With a fixed fine-tuning budget per deletion, we show that, for smooth strongly convex objectives, this approach keeps the performance loss bounded, uniformly in the number of requests. Experiments with multiclass logistic regression on FEMNIST show that the resulting algorithm needs fewer corrective steps than existing sequential methods and outperforms training-time differential privacy, particularly when group sizes are heterogeneous.

As models are getting larger and are trained on increasing amounts of data, there has been an explosion of interest into how we can delete'' specific data points or behaviours from a trained model, after the fact. This goal has been referred to as machine unlearning''. In this note, we argue that the term unlearning'' has been overloaded, with different research efforts spanning two distinct problem formulations, but without that distinction having been observed or acknowledged in the literature. This causes various issues, including ambiguity around when an algorithm is expected to work, use of inappropriate metrics and baselines when comparing different algorithms to one another, difficulty in interpreting results, as well as missed opportunities for pursuing critical research directions. In this note, we address this issue by establishing a fundamental distinction between two notions that we identify as \unlearning and \untraining, illustrated in Figure 1. In short, \untraining aims to reverse the effect of having trained on a given forget set, i.e. to remove the influence that that specific forget set examples had on the model during training. On the other hand, the goal of \unlearning is not just to remove the influence of those given examples, but to use those examples for the purpose of more broadly removing the entire underlying distribution from which those examples were sampled (e.g. the concept or behaviour that those examples represent). We discuss technical definitions of these problems and map problem settings studied in the literature to each. We hope to initiate discussions on disambiguating technical definitions and identify a set of overlooked research questions, as we believe that this a key missing step for accelerating progress in the field of unlearning''.