Papers › Machine Unlearning in Learned Databases: An Experimental Analysis
Machine Unlearning in Learned Databases: An Experimental Analysis
Meghdad Kurmanji, Eleni Triantafillou, Peter Triantafillou
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Machine learning models based on neural networks (NNs) are enjoying ever-increasing attention in the DB community. However, an important issue has been largely overlooked, namely the challenge of dealing with the highly dynamic nature of DBs, where data updates are fundamental, highly-frequent operations. Although some recent research has addressed the issues of maintaining updated NN models in the presence of new data insertions, the effects of data deletions (a.k.a., "machine unlearning") remain a blind spot. With this work, for the first time to our knowledge, we pose and answer the following key questions: What is the effect of unlearning algorithms on NN-based DB models? How do these effects translate to effects on downstream DB tasks, such as selectivity estimation (SE), approximate query processing (AQP), data generation (DG), and upstream tasks like data classification (DC)? What metrics should we use to assess the impact and efficacy of unlearning algorithms in learned DBs? Is the problem of machine unlearning in DBs different from that of machine learning in DBs in the face of data insertions? Is the problem of machine unlearning for DBs different from unlearning in the ML literature? what are the overhead and efficiency of unlearning algorithms? What is the sensitivity of unlearning on batching delete operations? If we have a suitable unlearning algorithm, can we combine it with an algorithm handling data insertions en route to solving the general adaptability/updatability requirement in learned DBs in the face of both data inserts and deletes? We answer these questions using a comprehensive set of experiments, various unlearning algorithms, a variety of downstream DB tasks, and an upstream task (DC), each with different NNs, and using a variety of metrics on a variety of real datasets, making this also a first key step towards a benchmark for learned DB unlearning.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2311.17276")
Code
Syntology Ran 12 of 15 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 3 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · our draft was wrong; 1 ran · fixture could not drive it; 10 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 15 samples from 1 repository, 12 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
15 samples harvested; 12 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 15 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from meghdadk/db_unlearning. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
b6c3c093da58e8e3 · report
eb641f3aafc7f28c · report
01fa27ae6183e41b · report
5bbe1531cb4ab972 · report
f0a007455fa85919 · report
2dfd5c008e1585eb · report
c015f4606fed587c · report
340974a6ff8f2f89 · report
cfe64ad66f5aeefa · report
546dd9e92541aecd · report
a94224cb98b134be · report
38f4116279596c2f · report
e85c652a61556e92 · report
15c558e5263df71c · report
7027dbc4b69cb3fb · report
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections