Papers › Redefining Machine Unlearning: A Conformal Prediction-Motivated Approach

Redefining Machine Unlearning: A Conformal Prediction-Motivated Approach

31 Jan 2025arXiv:2501.19403archive 2025-07-28

Yingdan Shi, Sijia Liu, Ren Wang

Machine unlearning seeks to remove the influence of specified data from a trained model. While metrics such as unlearning accuracy (UA) and membership inference attack (MIA) provide baselines for assessing unlearning performance, they fall short of evaluating the forgetting reliability. In this paper, we find that the data misclassified across UA and MIA still have their ground truth labels included in the prediction set from the uncertainty quantification perspective, which raises a fake unlearning issue. To address this issue, we propose two novel metrics inspired by conformal prediction that more reliably evaluate forgetting quality. Building on these insights, we further propose a conformal prediction-based unlearning framework that integrates conformal prediction into Carlini & Wagner adversarial attack loss, which can significantly push the ground truth label out of the conformal prediction set. Through extensive experiments on image classification task, we demonstrate both the effectiveness of our proposed metrics and the superiority of our unlearning framework, which improves the UA of existing unlearning methods by an average of 6.6% through the incorporation of a tailored loss term alone.

Code

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

13 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 13 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 13 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 TIML-Group/Conformal-Prediction-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.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

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