Papers › Towards Probabilistic Verification of Machine Unlearning

Towards Probabilistic Verification of Machine Unlearning

9 Mar 2020arXiv:2003.04247archive 2025-07-28

David Marco Sommer, Liwei Song, Sameer Wagh, Prateek Mittal

The right to be forgotten, also known as the right to erasure, is the right of individuals to have their data erased from an entity storing it. The status of this long held notion was legally solidified recently by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the European Union. Consequently, there is a need for mechanisms whereby users can verify if service providers comply with their deletion requests. In this work, we take the first step in proposing a formal framework to study the design of such verification mechanisms for data deletion requests -- also known as machine unlearning -- in the context of systems that provide machine learning as a service (MLaaS). Our framework allows the rigorous quantification of any verification mechanism based on standard hypothesis testing. Furthermore, we propose a novel backdoor-based verification mechanism and demonstrate its effectiveness in certifying data deletion with high confidence, thus providing a basis for quantitatively inferring machine unlearning. We evaluate our approach over a range of network architectures such as multi-layer perceptrons (MLP), convolutional neural networks (CNN), residual networks (ResNet), and long short-term memory (LSTM), as well as over 5 different datasets. We demonstrate that our approach has minimal effect on the ML service's accuracy but provides high confidence verification of unlearning. Our proposed mechanism works even if only a handful of users employ our system to ascertain compliance with data deletion requests. In particular, with just 5% of users participating, modifying half their data with a backdoor, and with merely 30 test queries, our verification mechanism has both false positive and false negative ratios below 10⁻³. We also show the effectiveness of our approach by testing it against an adaptive adversary that uses a state-of-the-art backdoor defense method.

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

3 samples harvested; 0 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: 3 of the 3 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 inspire-group/unlearning-verification. “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.

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