REVIEW 2 cited by
Gone but Not Forgotten: Improved Benchmarks for Machine Unlearning
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
Machine learning models are vulnerable to adversarial attacks, including attacks that leak information about the model's training data. There has recently been an increase in interest about how to best address privacy concerns, especially in the presence of data-removal requests. Machine unlearning algorithms aim to efficiently update trained models to comply with data deletion requests while maintaining performance and without having to resort to retraining the model from scratch, a costly endeavor. Several algorithms in the machine unlearning literature demonstrate some level of privacy gains, but they are often evaluated only on rudimentary membership inference attacks, which do not represent realistic threats. In this paper we describe and propose alternative evaluation methods for three key shortcomings in the current evaluation of unlearning algorithms. We show the utility of our alternative evaluations via a series of experiments of state-of-the-art unlearning algorithms on different computer vision datasets, presenting a more detailed picture of the state of the field.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Gradient Concentration, Not Weight Saliency, Explains Representation-Level Class Unlearning
In class unlearning on CIFAR-10/100 with ResNet-18, the identity of saliency-selected weights does not affect representation-level recovery; late-layer gradient concentration and representation geometry drive the outcome.
-
MUBox: A Critical Evaluation Framework of Deep Machine Unlearning
MUBox benchmarks 23 unlearning methods on six scenarios and 11 metrics, showing that method rankings depend heavily on the scenario and metric chosen.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.