For the presentation,

[mo-shahab]

refer this for the presentation

[mo-shahab]

paper: "approximate data deletion from machine learning models"

Keywords: Methodology

Data Privacy Regulations:

EU's General Data Protection Regulation.
California Consumer Privacy Act.

Right to be Forgotten:

Empowering individuals to request data removal.
Focus on fundamental privacy concepts.

Vulnerability of ML Models:

Challenges in vision and NLP domains.
Reconstruction of training data by attackers.

Deletion Challenge:

Efficient removal of specific batches (k points).
Balancing removal without compromising model efficiency.

Exact Data Deletion:

Computationally intensive.
Impractical for real-world applications.

Approximate Unlearning:

Innovative methods for efficient deletion.
Balancing accuracy and computational efficiency.

Newton's Method:

Approximate approach to data retraining.
Striking a balance between efficiency and accuracy.

Model Retraining Methods:

Comparative analysis of influential methods.
Exploring trade-offs in precision and computational complexity.

Keywords: Merits

Efficient Data Removal:

Balancing accuracy with computational efficiency.
Addressing challenges in removing data points.

Innovative Unlearning Methods:

Approaches beyond exact data deletion.
Methods preserving model integrity after deletion.

Balanced Precision:

Maintaining model accuracy during deletion.
Precision without compromising efficiency.

Regulatory Compliance:

Adherence to data privacy regulations.
Enabling compliance with the right to be forgotten.

Comparative Analysis:

Evaluating different deletion approaches.
Understanding the merits of approximate unlearning.

Keywords: Demerits

Computational Intensity:

Challenges with exact data deletion.
Computational impracticality for real-world use.
Complexity of Model Update:

Balancing accuracy post-data removal.
Challenges in maintaining model efficiency.
Trade-offs in Precision:

Understanding the precision-complexity trade-off.
Navigating challenges in data removal requests.
Attack Vulnerability:

Risks associated with model vulnerability.
Addressing reconstruction threats in ML models.

[mo-shahab]

paper: "amnesia"

Keywords: Methodology

1. Decremental Learning:

   • Efficient removal of user-specific data.
   • Focus on forgetting or unlearning information.
   • Coined term: "decremental update."

2. Right to be Forgotten:

   • Legal necessity for ML models.
   • Ethical concern.
   • Challenges in handling trained model data.

3. Dataset vs. Model Deletion:

   • Complications in removing data from a trained model.
   • Example scenario illustrating the inadequacy of dataset deletion alone.

4. Incremental vs. Decremental Models:

   • Incremental: Adding new data to update the model.
   • Decremental: Removing data from the existing dataset.

5. Tasks:

   • Item-Based Collaborative Filtering.
   • Ridge Regression in Regression.
   • k-Nearest Neighbors with Locality Sensitive Hashing in Classification.
   • Multinomial Naive Bayes in Classification.

---

Keywords: Merits

1. Efficient Data Removal:

   • Decremental model for forgetting user-specific information.
   • Balancing privacy concerns with model efficiency.

2. Privacy Risk Mitigation:

   • Addressing the risk of models making predictions based on deleted data.
   • Demonstrating potential privacy threats even after data deletion.

3. Incremental Model Benefits:

   • Improved recommendation systems with incremental updates.
   • Preventing overfitting in regression through incremental adjustments.

4. Task-Specific Learning:

   • Task-focused models for recommendation, regression, and classification.
   • Incremental and decremental approaches tailored to specific tasks.

---

Keywords: Demerits

1. Computational Complexity:

   • Challenges in exact data deletion.
   • Complexity in maintaining model efficiency post-deletion.

2. Privacy Challenges:

   • Privacy risks associated with model-based connections.
   • Limitations of dataset deletion alone in preserving user privacy.

3. Model Adjustment Challenges:

   • Difficulties in adjusting models after data removal.
   • Potential connections and predictions based on prior learned patterns.

4. Model Task Complexity:

   • Complexity in adjusting models for specific tasks.
   • Balancing precision with computational complexity in different learning tasks.

[mo-shahab]

paper: deltaboost: gradient boosting with machine unlearning:

Keywords: Methodology

1. Gradient Boosting Decision Trees (GBDT):

   • Efficient and explainable machine learning model.
   • Sequential construction of decision trees correcting errors.

2. Decision Trees:

   • Predictive model mapping features to conclusions.
   • Decision-making through a series of questions.

3. Gradient Boosting:

   • Machine learning technique for regression and classification.
   • Sequential construction of decision trees optimizing the objective function.

4. Node Removal Impact:

   • Discussion on the impact of removing a node from the decision tree.
   • Highlighting reliance on the preceding nodes in GBDT.

5. Unlearning in GBDT:

   • Unlearning involves removing previous nodes, affecting the model.
   • Challenge of GBDT for unlearning discussed.

6. DeltaBoost Framework:

   • Framework based on GBDT for efficient machine unlearning.
   • Focus on minimizing the objective function by gradient descent.

7. Histogram Construction:

   • Robust and balanced histogram construction from data.
   • Minimal adjustments for generating the retrained histogram after deletion.

8. Split Neighborhood:

   • Data structure to select the best split candidate from the histogram.
   • Consideration of changes in data for decision tree splitting.

9. Robust Feature Selection:

   • Selection of important and reliable information.
   • Dealing with noisy or less useful data components.

10. Robust Boosting:

    • Training learners for accurate predictions.
    • Adaptability to changes without starting from scratch.

---

Keywords: Merits

1. Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Trees:

   • Efficiency and explainability of GBDT highlighted.
   • Utilization of gradient boosting for optimization.

2. DeltaBoost Framework Advantages:

   • Minimization of the objective function by gradient descent.
   • Robust and balanced histogram construction for efficiency.
   • Consideration of split neighborhood for optimal feature selection.

3. Robust Feature Selection:

   • Effective identification of important data components.
   • Handling noisy or less useful information for robustness.

4. Adaptive Learning (Robust Boosting):

   • Training learners for accurate predictions.
   • Adaptability to changes without significant retraining.

---

Keywords: Demerits

1. GBDT Unlearning Challenges:

   • GBDT poses challenges for unlearning.
   • Removal of a small fraction of instances has limited impact on split points.

2. Impact of Node Removal:

   • Discussion on the impact of removing nodes.
   • GBDT's reliance on preceding nodes may complicate unlearning.

3. Specificity of DeltaBoost:

   • Framework designed for efficient unlearning in GBDT models.
   • Applicability may be limited to GBDT-based models.

4. Complexity of Split Neighborhood:

   • Consideration of split neighborhood for optimal feature selection.
   • Complexity in handling changes in data for decision tree splitting.

5. Practical Implications:

   • Efficient histogram construction but may have practical implications.
   • Real-world applicability and scalability considerations.

[mo-shahab]

paper: certifiable machine unlearning for linear models

Keywords: Methodology

1. Machine Unlearning Definition:

   • Updating ML model after partial data deletion.
   • Goal: Effective removal without excessive computational effort.

2. Legal Context - "Right to be Forgotten":

   • Compliance with laws requiring genuine data removal.
   • Exploration of certifiable unlearning methods.

3. Focus on Linear Models:

   • Research is model-intrinsic, emphasizing linear models.
   • Initial models assumed to be trained with SGD.

4. Comparison Methods:

   • Fisher Method: Corrects using available data.
   • Influence Method: Corrects using deleted data.
   • DeltaGrad Method: Adjusts initial training steps.

5. Experimental Framework:

   • Common ML pipeline implemented for compared methods.
   • Focus on linear classification models, e.g., logistic regression.
   • Initial model assumed to be trained with SGD.

---

Keywords: Merits

1. Certifiable Machine Unlearning:

   • Focus on effectiveness, efficiency, and certifiability.
   • Exploration of three distinct unlearning methods.

2. Experimental Evaluation Insights:

   • Use of six real-world datasets in diverse settings.
   • Insights into the impact of quantity and distribution of deleted data.

3. Practical Online Strategy:

   • Proposal of an online strategy to assess accumulated unlearning error.
   • Decision-making for full retraining based on error thresholds.

4. Efficient Unlearning Methods:

   • Evaluation of efficiency and effectiveness trade-offs.
   • Fisher and Influence methods highlighted for different strengths.

5. Certifiability Requirements:

   • Importance of proving the genuine removal of data.
   • Certifiability measured against fully retrained models.

---

Keywords: Demerits

1. Linear Model Focus Limitation:

   • Model-intrinsic approach limits generalizability.
   • Applicability primarily to linear classification models.

2. Algorithm Assumptions:

   • Assumption of initial model training with SGD.
   • May not cover models trained with other algorithms.

3. Efficiency-Certifiability Trade-offs:

   • Inverse relationship observed between certifiability and efficiency.
   • DeltaGrad method less efficient in the trade-off.

4. Efficiency-Effectiveness Trade-off:

   • Trade-off exploration between efficiency and effectiveness.
   • Influence method excels in providing a favorable balance.

5. Impact of Deletion Distribution:

   • Effects of deletion on model accuracy explored.
   • Influenced by uniform and targeted deletion distributions.

---

Keywords: Experimental Framework

1. Three Stages of ML Pipeline:

   • First Stage (Training): Initial model trained from data.
   • Second Stage (Inference): Trained model used for predictions.
   • Third Stage (Unlearning): Model adjusts to deleted data.

2. Decision-Making Process:

   • Continuous evaluation for model adjustments.
   • Decision to retrain based on accumulated unlearning error.

3. Dataset Overview:

   • Details on six real-world datasets used.
   • Varied dimensionality, classes, and deletion scenarios.

4. Impact of Deletion Distribution:

   • Exploration of effects on model accuracy.
   • Uniform and targeted deletion distributions analyzed.

5. Evaluation Metrics:

   • Effectiveness: Accuracy on a separate test dataset.
   • Certifiability: Comparison with a fully retrained model.
   • Efficiency: Trade-offs between certifiability and efficiency.

---

Keywords: Unlearning Methods

1. Fisher Method:

   • Corrects using available data.
   • Analogy: Fixing a mistake by focusing on unaffected parts.

2. Influence Method:

   • Corrects using deleted data.
   • Analogy: Fixing a mistake by focusing on erased parts.

3. DeltaGrad Method:

   • Corrects by adjusting initial training steps.
   • Analogy: Changing the way of original learning to get it right.

4. Trade-offs Analysis:

   • Efficiency-Certifiability Trade-offs.
   • Efficiency-Effectiveness Trade-offs.
   • Comparison of strengths and weaknesses.

---

Keywords: Evaluation Metrics

1. Effectiveness:

   • Measure: Accuracy on a separate test dataset.
   • Intuition: How well the model predicts accurately.

2. Certifiability:

   • Measure: Comparison with a fully retrained model.
   • Intuition: Ensuring genuine removal of deleted data.

3. Efficiency:

   • Measure: Trade-offs between certifiability and efficiency.
   • Intuition: Balancing speed and accuracy of unlearning.

4. Decision-Making Process:

   • Balancing efficiency and effectiveness for continuous adjustments.
   • Decision to retrain based on accumulated unlearning error.

---

Keywords: Dataset Analysis

1. Dataset Characteristics:

   • Dimensionality, classes, and size variation.
   • Influence of deletion distribution on accuracy.

2. Deletion Distribution Impact:

   • Uniform vs. targeted deletion distributions explored.
   • Worst-case scenarios leading to large accuracy drops.

3. Correlation between Accuracy Metrics:

   • Similar trends between test accuracy and deleted dataset accuracy.
   • Test accuracy as a proxy for assessing certifiability.

4. Informed Deletions:

   • Impact on accuracy higher than random delet

ions.

• Importance of testing unlearning methods under such scenarios.

[mo-shahab]

paper: efficient repair of the polluted system
Keywords: Methodology

1. Causal Unlearning:

   • Definition: A technique for automatically identifying and removing problematic data in machine learning systems.
   • Purpose: Addresses data pollution issues caused by malicious attacks on learning systems.

2. Karma System:

   • Definition: A system designed for efficient repair of polluted machine learning systems via causal unlearning.
   • Functionality: Automatically traces, identifies, and removes problematic data to correct learning model mistakes.

3. Smart System Vulnerabilities:

   • Challenge: Smart systems are susceptible to malicious attacks, such as data pollution, leading to incorrect learning and results.
   • Significance: The need for efficient solutions to detect and repair issues caused by maliciously injected data.

4. Data Pollution Attack:

   • Definition: A type of malicious attack involving the insertion of misleading training data into a machine learning system.
   • Impact: Results in the learning of incorrect patterns and behaviors by the smart system.

5. Massive Data Management Challenge:

   • Challenge: Smart systems deal with massive amounts of data, making manual inspection impractical.
   • Significance: Highlights the necessity for automated solutions for data inspection and repair.

---

Keywords: Merits

1. Automated Problem Detection:

   • Feature: Causal unlearning automatically traces issues from incorrect examples to learning model errors.
   • Benefit: Saves time by automating the detection of problematic data in the learning process.

2. Efficiency in Repair:

   • Feature: Karma efficiently identifies and removes problematic data, streamlining the repair process.
   • Benefit: Enhances the efficiency of repairing machine learning systems affected by data pollution.

3. Testing on Diverse Learning Systems:

   • Approach: Karma tested on three different learning systems.
   • Result: Demonstrated effectiveness in fixing systems and locating problematic data across diverse learning contexts.

4. Smart Search Mechanism:

   • Feature: Karma employs a smart search to identify groups of examples causing the most mistakes.
   • Benefit: Efficiently targets problematic data groups, aiding in precise removal for optimal repair.

5. Two-Step Cleanup Approach:

   • Approach: Karma assumes user reports for mistake detection and relies on gradual cleanup.
   • Benefit: Systematically addresses issues without requiring administrators to find all mistakes at once.

6. Administrator Verification:

   • Feature: Karma points out examples causing trouble, and administrators verify the identification.
   • Benefit: Combines automated detection with human verification for accurate and reliable results.

7. Practical Imperfection Tolerance:

   • Approach: Acknowledges that Karma might occasionally misidentify or miss problematic examples.
   • Benefit: Prioritizes safety, ensuring that the system works better with a focus on accuracy.

---

Keywords: Demerits

1. Administrator Dependency:

   • Challenge: Karma relies on administrators to verify examples causing trouble.
   • Limitation: Human verification introduces a dependency on administrative resources.

2. Potential False Positives/Negatives:

   • Challenge: Karma might occasionally identify good examples as bad or miss problematic examples.
   • Limitation: Imperfect identification introduces the possibility of false positives or negatives.

3. Dependency on User Reports:

   • Challenge: Karma assumes user reports for mistake detection.
   • Limitation: Relies on user feedback, which may not cover all potential issues in the learning system.

4. Not a Perfect Solution:

   • Acknowledgment: Karma may not always provide a perfect solution.
   • Limitation: Imperfect nature necessitates a balance between safety and completeness in system repair.

---

Keywords: Application and Conclusion

1. Application of Machine Unlearning:

   • Framework: Karma is an application or framework based on machine unlearning.
   • Focus: Detects and cleans bad data, emphasizing the practical application of machine unlearning for system repair.

2. Conclusion:

   • Summary: The paper introduces Karma, a causal unlearning-based framework, for repairing machine learning systems affected by data pollution.
   • Significance: Provides an automated solution to efficiently detect and remove problematic data, contributing to the reliability of smart systems.

[mo-shahab]

paper: Machine unlearning: linear filtration for logit based classifiers

Keywords: Methodology

1. Linear Filtration:

   • Definition: A novel algorithm proposed for the sanitization of classification models predicting logits.
   • Purpose: Used for the modification of model understanding, especially after class-wide deletion requests.

2. Logit-based Classifiers:

   • Definition: Classification models that predict logits, providing probabilistic values between 0 and 1.
   • Significance: Emphasizes the focus on predicting probabilities, contributing to the understanding of model outputs.

3. Adversarial Setting:

   • Context: Evaluation of the quality of an empirical unlearning operation in the presence of adversarial attacks.
   • Significance: Testing the effectiveness of unlearning methods in preventing privacy attacks on machine learning models.

4. Black-box Variant of Unlearning:

   • Definition: A weakened form of unlearning, proposed as a more realistic goal in practice.
   • Purpose: Enhances the practicality of unlearning operations, acknowledging the challenges in achieving complete unlearning.

5. Weak Unlearning Operation:

   • Definition: A method to adjust a machine learning model's knowledge about specific classes without complete unlearning.
   • Purpose: Provides a practical approach to modify the model's understanding, especially for particular classes.

6. Classifier Configuration:

   • Context: Refers to the arrangement of weights and features in a machine learning classifier.
   • Significance: Represents the initial state of the model before undergoing weak unlearning operations.

7. Computational Workload:

   • Context: Refers to the amount of computational resources required by a method or algorithm.
   • Significance: Indicates the practical applicability of the weak unlearning method in real-world situations.

---

Keywords: Merits

1. Linear Filtration Algorithm:

   • Feature: Linear filtration proposed as a novel algorithm for sanitizing classification models.
   • Benefit: Offers an intuitive and computationally efficient method for model sanitization.

2. Theoretical Contribution:

   • Contribution: Proposing a weakened, black-box variant of unlearning, adding to the theoretical understanding.
   • Significance: Enhances the definition of unlearning, considering practical challenges in real-world applications.

3. Adversarial Setting Evaluation:

   • Approach: Suggests evaluating unlearning operations in an adversarial setting to test privacy attack prevention.
   • Benefit: Provides a robust assessment of the quality and effectiveness of unlearning methods.

4. Practical Methodology:

   • Approach: Advocates evaluating the quality of unlearning operations in practical, real-world scenarios.
   • Benefit: Emphasizes the applicability and relevance of unlearning methods in addressing privacy concerns.

5. Flexibility with Logit-based Classifiers:

   • Feature: Linear filtration designed for classifiers predicting logits.
   • Benefit: Adapts to models predicting probabilities, contributing to the flexibility of the proposed methodology.

6. Adjustment for Specific Classes:

   • Feature: Weak unlearning operation focuses on tweaking a model's understanding for specific classes.
   • Benefit: Provides a targeted and practical approach to modifying the model's knowledge without complete unlearning.

7. Computational Efficiency:

   • Feature: Weak unlearning method doesn't significantly increase computational workload.
   • Benefit: Enhances the method's practicality, making it applicable in real-world scenarios without substantial resource requirements.

---

Keywords: Demerits

1. Incomplete Unlearning:

   • Challenge: Weak unlearning is not a complete unlearning method.
   • Limitation: May not address all aspects of knowledge retention, presenting limitations in certain scenarios.

2. Dependency on Adversarial Setting:

   • Challenge: Evaluation relies on an adversarial setting for privacy attack testing.
   • Limitation: The method's effectiveness might vary in different contexts, especially those not considered adversarial.

3. Potential Limitations in Black-box Variant:

   • Challenge: The black-box variant of unlearning might have practical limitations.
   • Limitation: Acknowledges potential challenges in achieving a fully black-box unlearning operation.

4. Selective Adjustment:

   • Challenge: Weak unlearning selectively adjusts the model's understanding for specific classes.
   • Limitation: May not be suitable for scenarios requiring a more comprehensive and uniform unlearning approach.

---

Keywords: Application and Conclusion

1. Application of Machine Unlearning:

   • Framework: Linear filtration and weak unlearning are presented as applications of machine unlearning.
   • Focus: Emphasizes the practical use of unlearning methods, especially in the context of logit-based classifiers.

2. Conclusion:

   • Summary: The paper introduces linear filtration and weak unlearning as methods for the sanitization of logit-based classifiers.
   • Significance: Highlights the contributions, theoretical enhancements, and practical methodologies in the context of machine unlearning for classification models.

[mo-shahab]

paper: Toward Highly-Efficient and Accurate Services QoS Prediction via Machine Unlearning

Keywords: Methodology

1. CADDEraser Framework:

   • Overview: Introduction of CADDEraser, a system designed for handling user requests to remove data from IoT services.
   • Significance: Addresses challenges related to data removal (unlearning requests) while ensuring efficient and accurate predictions.

2. Handling User Data Sensibly:

   • Context: Emphasizes the importance of responsible handling of user data in IoT devices.
   • Significance: Addresses challenges such as data contamination, ensuring the reliability of service predictions.

3. Machine Unlearning (MUL):

   • Definition: Technique used for removing personal data from the system.
   • Purpose: Improves the quality of predictions made by IoT services by eliminating sensitive data.

4. Quality of Service (QoS) Prediction:

   • Context: Highlights the critical nature of QoS prediction for service providers.
   • Significance: Affects market share and user retention; machine unlearning is applied to maintain prediction accuracy while safeguarding user data.

5. Deep Learning Models:

   • Context: Acknowledges the power of deep learning models for predictions.
   • Significance: Raises concerns about vulnerabilities to attacks compromising user data, motivating the use of machine unlearning for data removal.

6. Preventing Performance Degradation:

   • Challenge: Addresses the risk of degraded model performance due to the presence of risky or irrelevant data.
   • Approach: CADDEraser erases such data and retrains the model with a cleaned dataset to maintain accurate and reliable predictions.

---

Keywords: Merits

1. Efficient Data Removal:

   • Feature: CADDEraser is designed for efficient removal of user data from IoT services.
   • Benefit: Ensures the responsiveness and effectiveness of the data removal process.

2. Accurate Predictions:

   • Feature: The use of machine unlearning contributes to accurate predictions by eliminating sensitive data.
   • Benefit: Maintains the reliability of QoS predictions, crucial for user satisfaction and service provider success.

3. Responsible Data Handling:

   • Feature: Emphasis on handling user data responsibly in IoT devices.
   • Benefit: Mitigates challenges like data contamination, fostering trustworthy service predictions.

4. QoS Prediction Importance:

   • Feature: Recognition of the critical role of QoS prediction for service providers.
   • Benefit: Highlights the impact on market share and user retention, underscoring the significance of accurate predictions.

5. Data Contamination Mitigation:

   • Feature: CADDEraser addresses challenges related to data contamination in IoT services.
   • Benefit: Enhances the reliability of predictions by preventing the negative impact of incorrect or irrelevant data.

6. Machine Unlearning for Prediction Enhancement:

   • Feature: Application of machine unlearning to improve the quality of QoS predictions.
   • Benefit: Demonstrates a practical approach to enhancing prediction models by removing sensitive data.

---

Keywords: Demerits

1. Vulnerability to Attacks:

   • Challenge: Deep learning models, despite their power, can be vulnerable to attacks compromising user data.
   • Limitation: Raises concerns about the security of models, motivating the need for machine unlearning to address vulnerabilities.

2. Risk of Performance Degradation:

   • Challenge: Presence of risky or irrelevant data poses a risk of degraded model performance.
   • Limitation: Highlights the challenge of maintaining accurate predictions in the presence of problematic data, necessitating data removal and model retraining.

3. Challenges in Data Removal:

   • Challenge: Challenges related to data removal, especially in the context of user requests.
   • Limitation: Acknowledges complexities and potential difficulties in efficiently and accurately handling user data removal requests.

---

Keywords: Application and Conclusion

1. Relevance to Machine Unlearning:

   • Context: CADDEraser's use of machine unlearning aligns with the broader research focus on machine unlearning.
   • Significance: Showcases the practical application of machine unlearning techniques to improve the accuracy and reliability of predictions in IoT services.

2. Insights for Research:

   • Feature: The challenges addressed and methods employed in CADDEraser provide valuable insights for machine unlearning research.
   • Benefit: Offers context and inspiration for the ongoing machine unlearning project, showcasing real-world applications and potential solutions.

3. Practical Use of Machine Unlearning:

   • Feature: Demonstrates the practical use of machine unlearning techniques in enhancing prediction models.
   • Significance: Highlights the applicability of machine unlearning in addressing challenges related to data removal and improving the overall performance of prediction systems.

4. Challenges Addressed:

   • Feature: The paper addresses challenges related to data removal requests and model performance.
   • Significance: Provides a comprehensive view of the challenges faced in the field, offering potential solutions and insights for future research.

5. Summary:

   • Overview: The paper introduces CADDEraser, emphasizing its relevance to machine unlearning and the application of efficient data removal techniques.
   • Significance: Concludes by summar

[mo-shahab]

paper: lifelong anamoly detection through unlearning

Keywords: Methodology

1. Lifelong Anomaly Detection:

   • Definition: Lifelong anomaly detection involves continuously learning and adapting to new patterns of anomalies over time.
   • Significance: Addresses the challenges of evolving data distributions and changing patterns of anomalies in dynamic datasets.

2. Continuous Learning:

   • Feature: Involves a model that can learn from new data and adapt to emerging anomaly patterns.
   • Benefit: Ensures the adaptability of the model to changing data distributions and novel threats over time.

3. Adaptive Models:

   • Feature: Adaptive models capable of evolving and improving performance over the long term.
   • Benefit: Enhances the resilience and effectiveness of anomaly detection in dynamic and evolving real-world scenarios.

4. Unlearning Framework:

   • Concept: The paper introduces an unlearning framework for anomaly detection models.
   • Purpose: Enables the model to update itself based on new information about mistakes, such as false positives or false negatives.

5. Minimizing False Negatives:

   • Challenge: False negatives (missing actual abnormal events) are a focus, presenting challenges in model improvement.
   • Approach: The unlearning framework aims to minimize the probability of falsely identifying abnormal events as normal, addressing the challenges associated with false negatives.

6. Smart Implementation:

   • Feature: The unlearning approach is described as a smart way of implementing model updates without causing new problems.
   • Benefit: Ensures that improvements in anomaly detection do not negatively impact the model's overall performance on other data.

---

Keywords: Merits

1. Continuous Model Improvement:

   • Feature: Lifelong anomaly detection allows continuous learning and adaptation of the model.
   • Benefit: Ensures that the model improves its performance over time by incorporating new information and adapting to evolving data patterns.

2. Adaptability to Changing Data:

   • Feature: Adaptive models are designed to adapt to changing data distributions and emerging anomalies.
   • Benefit: Enhances the model's adaptability to evolving real-world scenarios, improving its effectiveness in dynamic environments.

3. Enhanced Resilience:

   • Feature: Adaptive models contribute to the enhanced resilience of anomaly detection systems.
   • Benefit: Increases the system's ability to withstand changes in data patterns and effectively detect anomalies in challenging and dynamic conditions.

4. Focused Handling of False Negatives:

   • Feature: The paper focuses on explaining challenges and techniques related to handling false negatives.
   • Benefit: Provides in-depth insights into the complexities of addressing false negatives, which are crucial for improving the overall accuracy of anomaly detection.

5. Smart Unlearning Approach:

   • Feature: The unlearning framework is described as a smart way of implementing model updates.
   • Benefit: Ensures that the model's sensitivity is appropriately adjusted without causing unintended negative consequences, maintaining a balance in performance.

---

Keywords: Demerits

1. Challenges in Handling False Negatives:

   • Challenge: Handling false negatives poses specific challenges in the context of anomaly detection.
   • Limitation: Acknowledges the difficulty of effectively addressing false negatives, requiring careful consideration in the unlearning process.

2. Risk of Model Sensitivity:

   • Challenge: Directly minimizing the probability of false negatives can lead to increased model sensitivity.
   • Limitation: A potential risk of the model becoming overly sensitive, which may impact its overall performance on other data.

---

Keywords: Application and Conclusion

1. Practical Implementation of Lifelong Anomaly Detection:

   • Context: The paper discusses the practical implementation of lifelong anomaly detection through continuous learning.
   • Significance: Showcases the real-world application of adaptive models in the context of anomaly detection, addressing the challenges posed by evolving datasets.

2. Unlearning Framework in Anomaly Detection:

   • Context: Introduces the unlearning framework as a means of updating anomaly detection models.
   • Significance: Demonstrates the importance of continuous improvement and adaptability in anomaly detection systems, particularly in handling false negatives.

3. Focus on False Negatives:

   • Feature: The paper places emphasis on explaining challenges related to false negatives.
   • Benefit: Provides valuable insights into the complexities of addressing false negatives, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of model improvements.

4. Balance in Model Sensitivity:

   • Feature: The unlearning approach aims for a smart implementation to adjust model sensitivity.
   • Significance: Maintains a balance between addressing false negatives and avoiding unintended negative consequences, ensuring the overall effectiveness of the model.

5. Summary:

   • Overview: The paper introduces lifelong anomaly detection and the application of an unlearning framework.
   • Significance: Concludes by summarizing the practical aspects of continuous learning, adaptive models, and the challenges addressed in the context of anomaly detection.

[mo-shahab]

paper: forgeability and membership inference attack

Keywords: Methodology

1. Membership Inference Attack:

   • Definition: A type of attack on machine learning models where an adversary attempts to determine whether a specific data point was part of the training dataset.
   • Significance: Raises concerns about the privacy of machine learning models and the potential leakage of sensitive information.

2. Machine Learning Privacy:

   • Context: The paper discusses machine learning privacy concerns, particularly in the context of membership inference attacks.
   • Importance: Highlights the importance of addressing privacy issues associated with machine learning models and the need for robust privacy-preserving techniques.

3. GDPR Rules:

   • Reference: Emphasizes compliance with General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules.
   • Significance: Acknowledges the regulatory framework that governs data privacy and underscores the importance of aligning machine learning practices with legal and ethical standards.

4. Computational Expense of Exact Machine Unlearning:

   • Observation: Exact machine unlearning, involving retraining the data from scratch, is identified as computationally expensive.
   • Implication: Recognizes a limitation in the efficiency of exact machine unlearning and hints at the need for more resource-efficient approaches.

5. Forgeability:

   • Definition: Describes data sets as "forgeable" if they can be used to train a smart system to be almost the same.
   • Concept: Implies the ability to create a model that closely resembles the original using different sets of data.

6. Unnoticeable Difference in Unlearned Models:

   • Observation: Forgeability suggests that unlearned models may not exhibit noticeable differences from the original model.
   • Implication: Raises questions about the effectiveness of current machine unlearning methods in truly erasing information from models.

7. Issue in Defining Unlearning for Machines:

   • Insight: Forgeability highlights a potential issue in how unlearning for machines is defined.
   • Significance: Points out a challenge in achieving meaningful and distinguishable unlearning results in machine learning models.

8. Connection Between Machine Unlearning and Membership Inference:

   • Relationship: The paper establishes a connection between machine unlearning and membership inference attacks.
   • Insight: Reveals a correlation between the process of unlearning and the vulnerability of models to privacy breaches through membership inference.

9. Relevance to Framework Principles:

   • Context: The paper is subtly relevant to the framework, providing insights that can counter arguments about the meaning and principles of machine unlearning.
   • Significance: Offers perspectives that can contribute to refining and strengthening the principles guiding machine unlearning in the proposed framework.

---

Keywords: Merits

1. Privacy Concerns Acknowledgment:

   • Feature: The paper acknowledges and discusses privacy concerns associated with machine learning models.
   • Benefit: Provides a foundation for addressing and mitigating privacy issues, fostering responsible and ethical machine learning practices.

2. GDPR Compliance Emphasis:

   • Feature: Emphasizes the importance of complying with GDPR rules in the context of machine learning.
   • Benefit: Highlights the significance of aligning machine learning processes with legal and ethical standards, ensuring responsible data handling.

3. Identification of Computational Expense:

   • Feature: Identifies the computational expense associated with exact machine unlearning.
   • Benefit: Recognizes a challenge and potential area for improvement in developing more efficient machine unlearning methods.

4. Forgeability Concept:

   • Feature: Introduces the concept of forgeability in the context of data sets and machine learning models.
   • Benefit: Provides a conceptual framework for understanding the potential limitations in achieving distinguishable unlearning results.

5. Connection Between Unlearning and Membership Inference:

   • Feature: Establishes a connection between machine unlearning and the susceptibility of models to membership inference attacks.
   • Benefit: Enhances awareness of the interplay between unlearning processes and privacy vulnerabilities, contributing to more robust privacy-preserving strategies.

---

Keywords: Demerits

1. Computational Expense of Exact Unlearning:

   • Challenge: Exact machine unlearning is identified as computationally expensive.
   • Limitation: Poses a challenge in terms of resource efficiency, highlighting a potential drawback in the current unlearning approaches.

2. Unnoticeable Differences in Unlearned Models:

   • Challenge: Forgeability suggests that unlearned models may not exhibit noticeable differences from the original.
   • Limitation: Raises questions about the effectiveness of current machine unlearning methods in achieving clear and distinguishable results.

3. Issue in Defining Unlearning:

   • Challenge: Forgeability points out a potential issue in how unlearning for machines is defined.
   • Limitation: Indicates a challenge in achieving meaningful and distinguishable unlearning outcomes, prompting a reevaluation of current definitions and principles.

4. Privacy Vulnerability:

   • Challenge: The connection between machine unlearning and membership inference highlights a vulnerability in model privacy.
   • Limitation: Underscores the need for enhanced privacy-preserving techniques to address the identified vulnerability and protect against membership inference attacks.

---

Keywords: Application and Conclusion

1. Privacy-Aware Machine Learning Practices:

   • Context: The paper's insights contribute to the development of privacy-aware machine learning practices.
   • Significance: Encourages the adoption of responsible and ethical approaches to machine learning, considering privacy implications and compliance with regulations.

2. Efficiency Improvement in Unlearning:

   • Context: The identification of the computational expense of exact machine unlearning suggests a need for more efficient approaches.
   • Significance: Calls for research and development efforts to improve the efficiency of unlearning methods, addressing computational challenges.

3. Conceptual Framework for Forgeability:

   • Feature: Introduces a conceptual framework for understanding forgeability in the context of machine learning models.
   • Significance: Provides a foundation for future research and discussions on the limitations and possibilities associated with unlearning processes.

4. Interplay Between Unlearning and Privacy:

   • Context: The paper highlights the interplay between machine unlearning and privacy vulnerabilities, especially in the context of membership inference.
   • Significance: Emphasizes the importance of developing strategies to mitigate privacy risks and protect against potential attacks on machine learning models.

5. Relevance to Framework Principles:

   • Feature: The paper's subtle relevance to the framework provides insights that can counter arguments and refine the principles of machine unlearning.
   • Significance: Contributes valuable perspectives to strengthen and adapt the proposed framework, considering the complexities highlighted in the paper.

6. Summary:

   • Overview: The paper provides insights into privacy concerns, computational challenges, forgeability, and the connection between unlearning and membership inference.
   • Significance: Concludes by summarizing the key findings and implications, offering a comprehensive understanding of the implications for machine unlearning and privacy in machine learning models.

[mo-shahab]

paper: algorithms that remember, model inversion attack and inference attack

Keywords: GDPR, Machine Learning, Model Inversion Attacks, Data Protection Law

1. Introduction:

   • Mention: Highlights the significance of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in strengthening data protection provisions and penalties.
   • Context: Refers to the GDPR in response to the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2018.

2. Changing Technologies and Data Reconstruction:

   • Argument: Asserts that changing technologies may complicate data protection, suggesting a bidirectional process where training data or information about it can be reconstructed from a model.
   • Insight: Raises concerns about the evolving nature of technology impacting data protection paradigms.

3. European Data Protection Law and Machine Learning:

   • GDPR Overview: Describes the GDPR as a comprehensive law, challenging to summarize concisely, applying to personal data processing within or outside the EU related to EU residents.
   • Focus: Emphasizes the legal considerations, especially regarding the use of machine learning to transform personal data into special category personal data.

4. Why Models Might be Personal Data:

   • Section Title: Examines the concept of models being considered as personal data.
   • Attacks Overview: Discusses different types of attacks, highlighting concerns about the privacy implications of model inversion and membership inference attacks.

5. Model Inversion Attacks:

   • Definition: Describes model inversion attacks, where a data controller can recover variables in the training set by having access to certain information.
   • Example: Provides an example scenario of a model inversion attack, emphasizing the potential accuracy of recovered data.

6. Membership Inference Attacks:

   • Definition: Explains membership inference attacks, focusing on determining whether an individual's data was part of a training set.
   • Attack Process: Details how the attacker, with access to specific information, can infer membership status without recovering actual training data.

7. Paper's Framework and Concerns:

   • Framework Overview: Discusses the paper's framework for addressing concerns related to the abuse of data from machine learning models.
   • Ethical Decisions: Emphasizes the importance of ethical decision-making by data controllers when dealing with personal information in machine learning models.

8. Conclusion and Recommendations:

   • Summary: Concludes that the paper raises awareness about potential abuses of data from machine learning models.
   • Recommendations: Suggests measures for individuals, organizations, and governments to mitigate risks associated with privacy infringements in machine learning.

---

Overall Analysis:
This paper navigates the intersection of machine learning and data protection laws, with a specific focus on GDPR. It elucidates potential privacy risks arising from model inversion and membership inference attacks, emphasizing the need for ethical decision-making. The authors call attention to the bidirectional nature of data transformation in machine learning and advocate for measures to protect individuals' privacy. The paper contributes to the discourse on responsible data handling in the era of evolving technologies and heightened data protection regulations.

[mo-shahab]

paper: when machine unlearning jeopardizes the privacy

Methodology:

• Attack Model Training: Training an attack model (M𝐴) to capture differences between original and unlearned model behaviors.
• Shadow Models: Training shadow original and unlearned models to mimic the behavior of the target model.
• Posteriors Generation: Obtaining posterior probabilities (P𝑜 and P𝑢) from the original and unlearned models for a target sample.
• Feature Construction: Aggregating posteriors to construct a feature vector (F) for membership inference.
• Membership Inference: Using the feature vector to determine whether the target sample is in the training set of the original model.

Merits:

• Efficiency with SISA: Suggests an efficient unlearning method, SISA, reducing computational overhead compared to retraining from scratch.
• Privacy Degradation Metrics: Introduces metrics (DegCount and DegRate) for quantifying additional information leakage due to machine unlearning.
• End-to-End Experimentation: Conducts end-to-end experiments on multiple datasets, validating the attack's effectiveness.

Demerits:

• Computational Overhead: Highlights the high computational overhead of retraining from scratch, making it impractical for large datasets and complex models.
• Potential Overfitting: Evaluates the impact of overfitting on the attack's effectiveness, indicating a potential vulnerability.
• Dataset and Model Transferability: Investigates transferability between shadow and target models, which may introduce uncertainties in real-world scenarios.
• Attack Sensitivity: Adversary's ability to infer unlearning may be sensitive to hyperparameters and dataset characteristics.

Note: This summary provides concise keywords for each section, capturing the essential aspects of the methodology, merits, and demerits.

[mo-shahab]

paper: remember what you want to forget

Methodology:

• Unlearning Methods: Fisher, DeltaGrad, and Influence methods for machine unlearning.
• Noise Injection: Different ways of injecting noise into model parameters or the objective function to achieve certifiable unlearning.
• Evaluation Metrics: Effectiveness (accuracy on test data), Certifiability (similarity to fully retrained model), Efficiency (speed-up compared to full retraining).
• Experimental Roadmap: Comparative experiments on various datasets, deletion distributions, and parameter values. Strategy to decide when to retrain based on test accuracy and estimated certifiability.
• Trade-offs Analysis: Exploration of trade-offs between effectiveness, certifiability, and efficiency. Examination of parameters' impact on accuracy error and speed-up.

Merits:

• Novel Framework: Introduces a novel framework for comparing machine unlearning methods.
• Extended Methods: Extends existing methods with mechanisms to control performance trade-offs.
• Experimental Comparison: Provides the first experimental comparison of unlearning methods in various settings.
• Online Strategy: Proposes a practical online strategy to determine when to restart the training pipeline.

Demerits:

• Limited Applicability: Focuses on linear models trained with SGD, limiting generalizability to more complex models.
• Theoretical Emphasis: Theoretical guarantees provided, but lacks empirical evaluation on real-world datasets.
• Dependency on Data Statistics: Assumes access to cheap-to-store data statistics, which may not be universally available.
• Convex Loss Functions: Restricted to convex loss functions, potentially limiting application to non-convex models.

Future Directions:

• General Data Updates: Suggests extending the study to general data updates and other ML settings.
• Elaborate Mechanisms: Calls for the development of more elaborate mechanisms to determine when full retraining is needed.

Note: This summary provides concise keywords for each section, capturing the essential aspects of the methodology, merits, demerits, and future directions.