arXiv:2607. 05898v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evaluating whether unlearning algorithms truly remove training data influence remains an open challenge.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.
arXiv:2606. 16110v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Machine unlearning has been extensively studied in response to growing privacy concerns and regulatory requirements.
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.
arXiv:2512. 05254v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As concerns around data privacy in machine learning grow, the ability to unlearn, or remove, specific data points from trained models becomes increasingly important.
arXiv:2606. 14518v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The removal of learned data from Machine Learning models through Machine Unlearning (MU) has been widely studied; however, there has yet to be an agreed-upon scheme for auditing MU.
The paper presents a fast machine unlearning method that uses Hessian analysis to identify correlated training data and applies a closed‑form update rule. This approach achieves an 82× speedup over traditional influence‑function unlearning while maintaining or slightly improving model accuracy. Experiments on seven dataset‑architecture pairs, including CIFAR‑100 with ResNet‑50, show strong forgetting performance and low vulnerability to membership inference attacks.
The paper investigates the privacy risks inherent in auditing machine unlearning (MU) when the audit relies only on querying the model for behavioral signals. It shows that such generic audit schemes inevitably leak information about the retained data set, providing a geometric transfer theorem that bounds the distinguishability of retained set membership based on audit accuracy. The study also analyzes how the unlearned set, target sample, and query protocol influence the privacy‑audit transfer coefficient, with empirical evidence from both convex and non‑convex models supporting the theoretical findings.