pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.05946 · v1 · pith:7TNDQFMSnew · submitted 2026-06-04 · 💻 cs.LG

Short paper: Models in the dark -- Rectification and erasure under GDPR in ML supply chains

Henrik Gra{\ss}hoff , Malte Hansen , Meiko Jensen , Sara Ramezanian This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 03:21 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG
keywords GDPRmachine learningrectificationerasuresupply chainsdata subject rightsmodels in the darkprivacy
0
0 comments X

The pith

Many GDPR requirements for rectification and erasure cannot be met technically in machine learning supply chains.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper surveys the practical difficulties of enforcing individuals' rights under GDPR to have their data corrected or deleted when that data feeds into machine learning systems. Drawing from academic work and official data protection guidance, it concludes that technical solutions are still missing for many of the required operations. The authors note that ML models typically arise through chains involving multiple separate actors in development, distribution, and deployment, yet this structure receives little research attention. They introduce the term models in the dark to describe downstream models created without enough transparency or traceability to support data subject rights. The overall aim is to link legal obligations more closely with feasible technical implementations.

Core claim

The paper establishes that many GDPR requirements cannot yet be technically met in practice, that issues arising in ML supply chains are insufficiently addressed in research, and that the notion of models in the dark poses urgent challenges.

What carries the argument

Models in the dark, defined as derived models created further downstream in an ML chain without sufficient transparency or traceability.

If this is right

  • Technical work on data subject rights must incorporate the presence of multiple independent actors across the full ML development and deployment process.
  • Future research on rectification and erasure needs to treat supply-chain opacity as a primary rather than secondary concern.
  • Interdisciplinary efforts are required to translate GDPR rules into implementable mechanisms that function when models are passed downstream.
  • Trustworthy AI development depends on closing the identified gaps between legal rights and existing technical tools.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Standardized interfaces or logging requirements between supply-chain participants could become necessary if models in the dark remain common.
  • The identified research gap may point to a need for new auditing standards that verify privacy compliance across organizational boundaries.
  • If downstream models routinely lack traceability, regulators might need to impose upstream obligations on data providers or model distributors.

Load-bearing premise

The surveyed academic literature and data protection authority guidance provide a sufficiently complete and accurate picture of both current technical capabilities and the extent of research attention to supply-chain issues.

What would settle it

A working technical system that fully supports rectification and erasure across an entire multi-actor ML supply chain, with clear traceability at every stage, would show that the requirements can be met.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.05946 by Henrik Gra{\ss}hoff, Malte Hansen, Meiko Jensen, Sara Ramezanian.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Data flows between different actors in a simplified ML supply chain. Dashed lines indicate optional model adaptions. (4) The model is then trained using the prepared data, typically split into train￾ing, testing, and validation subsets. Based on training results, model weights are adjusted, and the resulting ML model is deployed. In our generalised scenario, steps (2)–(4) are performed by a single actor, t… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Models in the dark in simple ML supply chains (adapted from [31]) 4.2 Locating controllers under supply chain opacity Before submitting a DSR request, a data subject does not need to determine whether a model contains their personal data. However, in practice, they may lack information about whether and how their data is present in an ML model, complicating the exercise of their rights. To find out whether… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The rights to rectification and erasure, as established under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), are central to protecting individuals' privacy. However, their effective enforcement in machine learning (ML) systems remains challenging. Existing work has largely addressed these rights from either a legal or a technical perspective in isolation and disregards the fact that models are produced in complex supply chains involving multiple actors across development, distribution, and deployment. This paper presents a holistic survey of challenges in implementing the rights to rectification and erasure in ML models. Drawing on academic literature and guidance from data protection authorities, we find that many GDPR requirements cannot yet be technically met in practice. Our findings further suggest that issues arising in ML supply chains are insufficiently addressed in research. To tackle this gap, we introduce the notion of models in the dark -- derived models created further downstream in an ML chain without sufficient transparency or traceability -- and analyse the urgent challenges posed by this phenomenon. By adopting an interdisciplinary perspective, this work contributes to bridging the gap between legal requirements and the technical implementation of data subject rights in ML, ultimately supporting the development of trustworthy artificial intelligence.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents a holistic survey of challenges in implementing the GDPR rights to rectification and erasure in machine learning models, focusing on complex supply chains involving multiple actors. Drawing from academic literature and data protection authority guidance, it concludes that many GDPR requirements cannot be technically met in practice and that supply-chain issues are insufficiently addressed in research. It introduces the notion of 'models in the dark' for downstream models lacking transparency and analyzes the challenges they pose, advocating an interdisciplinary approach to bridge legal and technical gaps.

Significance. If the literature survey is comprehensive and balanced, this work is significant for identifying practical barriers to GDPR compliance in ML systems and highlighting under-researched areas in supply chains. The introduction of 'models in the dark' offers a new lens for discussing traceability issues in ML pipelines, which could inform future research on machine unlearning and model editing in distributed settings. This contributes to the development of trustworthy AI by connecting legal obligations with technical realities.

major comments (1)
  1. [Survey approach / literature review section] The claims that many GDPR requirements cannot yet be technically met and that supply-chain issues are insufficiently addressed in research (abstract and main findings) rest on the surveyed literature and DPA guidance providing an accurate picture of capabilities and gaps. No explicit methodology for the literature review is described, including search strings, databases, date ranges, or inclusion/exclusion criteria. This is load-bearing for the central claims, as relevant work on machine unlearning, model editing, or supply-chain traceability could be omitted.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and introduction] The term 'models in the dark' is introduced without an early, precise definition distinguishing it from related concepts such as black-box models or model extraction attacks; add this in the introduction for clarity.
  2. [Throughout] Ensure consistent terminology when referring to supply-chain actors (developers, distributors, deployers) across sections to avoid ambiguity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thoughtful review and recommendation. The single major comment identifies a genuine gap in the presentation of our survey methodology, which we address directly below by committing to a clear revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The claims that many GDPR requirements cannot yet be technically met and that supply-chain issues are insufficiently addressed in research (abstract and main findings) rest on the surveyed literature and DPA guidance providing an accurate picture of capabilities and gaps. No explicit methodology for the literature review is described, including search strings, databases, date ranges, or inclusion/exclusion criteria. This is load-bearing for the central claims, as relevant work on machine unlearning, model editing, or supply-chain traceability could be omitted.

    Authors: We agree that the absence of an explicit methodology section weakens the transparency of the survey and is a valid point for major revision. In the revised manuscript we will insert a new subsection (provisionally titled 'Survey Methodology') immediately after the introduction. It will specify: (i) the databases and repositories searched (Google Scholar, arXiv, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, and the official websites of the European Data Protection Board and selected national DPAs); (ii) the Boolean search strings employed (combinations of 'GDPR' AND ('rectification' OR 'erasure' OR 'right to be forgotten') AND ('machine learning' OR 'model' OR 'supply chain' OR 'unlearning' OR 'model editing')); (iii) the temporal scope (January 2018–March 2024, reflecting the GDPR's applicability date); and (iv) inclusion/exclusion criteria (peer-reviewed articles, official DPA guidance documents, and technical reports that directly address technical feasibility of rectification or erasure; exclusion of purely theoretical legal analyses without technical discussion and of non-English sources). We have re-examined our internal search logs and confirm that the cited works on machine unlearning and model editing were captured under these criteria; making the process explicit will allow readers to evaluate coverage. This change directly strengthens the evidential basis for the paper's central claims without altering their substance. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: survey draws on external sources without self-referential derivation

full rationale

The paper is a survey of legal-technical challenges in GDPR rights for ML models. It contains no equations, fitted parameters, predictions derived from inputs, or mathematical derivations. Claims rest on cited academic literature and DPA guidance treated as external inputs. No self-citation is load-bearing in a definitional or reductionist sense, and the 'models in the dark' notion is introduced as an analytical framing rather than derived from prior self-work. This matches the default non-circular outcome for survey papers self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The paper rests on standard interpretations of GDPR articles and on the technical literature concerning ML privacy; its main addition is the conceptual entity 'models in the dark' introduced without external falsifiable evidence.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption GDPR rights to rectification and erasure apply to personal data used in ML models produced through supply chains
    Foundational premise stated in the abstract and title.
  • domain assumption Existing technical methods are insufficient to meet many GDPR requirements in practice
    Central finding drawn from the literature review.
invented entities (1)
  • models in the dark no independent evidence
    purpose: To label derived models created further downstream in an ML chain without sufficient transparency or traceability
    New term coined in the paper to analyze supply-chain challenges; no independent evidence or falsifiable prediction is supplied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5740 in / 1335 out tokens · 44180 ms · 2026-06-28T03:21:17.128698+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    TheethicsofAIvaluechains

    BlairAttard-FrostandDavidGrayWidder.“TheethicsofAIvaluechains”. In:Big Data & Society12.2 (2025).doi: 10.1177/20539517251340603

    work page doi:10.1177/20539517251340603 2025

  2. [2]

    Unpacking Trust Dynamics in the LLM Supply Chain: An Empirical Exploration to Foster Trustworthy LLM Production & Use

    Agathe Balayn et al. “Unpacking Trust Dynamics in the LLM Supply Chain: An Empirical Exploration to Foster Trustworthy LLM Production & Use”. In:Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 2025, pp. 1–20.doi: 10.1145/3706598.3713787

    work page doi:10.1145/3706598.3713787 2025

  3. [3]

    Reconstruction Attacks on Machine Unlearning: Simple Models are Vulnerable

    Martin Bertran et al. “Reconstruction Attacks on Machine Unlearning: Simple Models are Vulnerable”. In:Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 37. 2024, pp. 104995–105016.doi: 10.52202/079017-3334

    work page doi:10.52202/079017-3334 2024

  4. [4]

    Machine Unlearning

    Lucas Bourtoule et al. “Machine Unlearning”. In:2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). 2021, pp. 141–159.doi: 10.1109/SP40001. 2021.00019. 12 Graßhoff et al

    work page doi:10.1109/sp40001 2021

  5. [5]

    Human-GDPR Interaction: Practical Experiences of Accessing Personal Data

    Alex Bowyer et al. “Human-GDPR Interaction: Practical Experiences of Accessing Personal Data”. In:CHI Conference on Human Factors in Com- puting Systems. 2022, pp. 1–19.doi: 10.1145/3491102.3501947

    work page doi:10.1145/3491102.3501947 2022

  6. [6]

    2023.url: https: //adalovelaceinstitute.org/resource/ai-supply-chains/

    Ian Brown.Allocating accountability in AI supply chains. 2023.url: https: //adalovelaceinstitute.org/resource/ai-supply-chains/

    2023

  7. [7]

    findings-acl.454/

    Yinzhi Cao and Junfeng Yang. “Towards Making Systems Forget with Machine Unlearning”. In:2015 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. 2015, pp. 463–480.doi: 10.1109/SP.2015.35

    work page doi:10.1109/sp.2015.35 2015

  8. [8]

    Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models

    Nicholas Carlini et al. “Extracting Training Data from Large Language Models”. In:30th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 21). 2021, pp. 2633–2650

    2021

  9. [9]

    The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Un- intended Memorization in Neural Networks

    Nicholas Carlini et al. “The Secret Sharer: Evaluating and Testing Un- intended Memorization in Neural Networks”. In:28th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 19). 2019, pp. 267–284

    2019

  10. [10]

    ExtractingTrainingDatafromDiffusionModels

    NicolasCarlinietal.“ExtractingTrainingDatafromDiffusionModels”.In: 32nd USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 23).2023,pp.5253– 5270

    2023

  11. [11]

    A survey of security and privacy issues of machine unlearning

    Aobo Chen et al. “A survey of security and privacy issues of machine unlearning”. In:AI Magazine46.1 (2025).doi: 10.1002/aaai.12209

    work page doi:10.1002/aaai.12209 2025

  12. [12]

    New directions in automated traffic analysis

    Min Chen et al. “When Machine Unlearning Jeopardizes Privacy”. In:Pro- ceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Com- munications Security. 2021, pp. 896–911.doi: 10.1145/3460120.3484756

    work page doi:10.1145/3460120.3484756 2021

  13. [13]

    Artificial intelligence as a service: Legal responsibilities, liabilities, and policy challenges

    Jennifer Cobbe and Jatinder Singh. “Artificial intelligence as a service: Legal responsibilities, liabilities, and policy challenges”. In:Computer Law & Security Review42 (2021).doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105573

    work page doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2021.105573 2021

  14. [14]

    Understanding ac- countability in algorithmic supply chains

    Jennifer Cobbe, Michael Veale, and Jatinder Singh. “Understanding ac- countability in algorithmic supply chains”. In:2023 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency. 2023, pp. 1186–1197.doi: 10. 1145/3593013.3594073

    arXiv 2023

  15. [15]

    2024.url: https://www.cnil

    Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés.Determining the legal qualification of AI system providers. 2024.url: https://www.cnil. fr/en/determining-legal-qualification-ai-system-providers (visited on 04/22/2026)

    2024

  16. [16]

    2026.url: https://www

    Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés.Ensuring and fa- cilitating the exercise of data subjects’ rights. 2026.url: https://www. cnil.fr/en/ensuring-and-facilitating-exercise-data-subjects-rights (visited on 04/16/2026)

    2026

  17. [17]

    Accountability inan Algorithmic Society: Relation- ality, Responsibility, and Robustness in Machine Learning

    A. Feder Cooper et al. “Accountability inan Algorithmic Society: Relation- ality, Responsibility, and Robustness in Machine Learning”. In:2022 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency. 2022, pp. 864– 876.doi: 10.1145/3531146.3533150

    work page doi:10.1145/3531146.3533150 2022

  18. [18]

    2025.url: https://github.com/deepseek- ai/DeepSeek-V3 (visited on 04/22/2026)

    DeepSeek-AI.DeepSeek-V3. 2025.url: https://github.com/deepseek- ai/DeepSeek-V3 (visited on 04/22/2026)

    2025

  19. [19]

    AI Meets the GDPR: Navigating the Impact of Data Protection on AI Systems

    Pierre Dewitte. “AI Meets the GDPR: Navigating the Impact of Data Protection on AI Systems”. In:The Cambridge Handbook of the Law, Rectification and erasure under GDPR in ML supply chains 13 Ethics and Policy of Artificial Intelligence. Ed. by Nathalie A. Smuha. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 2025, pp. 133–157.doi: 10.1017/ 9781009367783.010

    2025

  20. [20]

    Safeguarding large language models: a survey

    Yi Dong et al. “Safeguarding large language models: a survey”. en. In: Artificial Intelligence Review58.12 (2025).issn: 1573-7462.doi: 10.1007/ s10462-025-11389-2

    2025

  21. [21]

    2023.url: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/ files/2023-04/edpb_guidelines_202201_data_subject_rights_access_ v2_en.pdf

    European Data Protection Board.Guidelines 01/2022 on data subject rights - Right of access. 2023.url: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/ files/2023-04/edpb_guidelines_202201_data_subject_rights_access_ v2_en.pdf

    2022

  22. [22]

    2024.url: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2024- 12/edpb_opinion_202428_ai-models_en.pdf

    European Data Protection Board.Opinion 28/2024 on certain data pro- tection aspects related to the processing of personal data in the context of AI models. 2024.url: https://www.edpb.europa.eu/system/files/2024- 12/edpb_opinion_202428_ai-models_en.pdf

    2024

  23. [23]

    GDPR and Large Language Models: Techni- cal and Legal Obstacles

    Georgios Feretzakis et al. “GDPR and Large Language Models: Techni- cal and Legal Obstacles”. In:Future Internet17.4 (2025).doi: 10.3390/ fi17040151

    2025

  24. [24]

    Wenjie Fu et al.Sanitize Your Responses: Mitigating Privacy Leakage in Large Language Models. arXiv. 2025.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2509.24488

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.24488 2025

  25. [25]

    In: IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Rohit Gandikota et al. “Erasing Concepts from Diffusion Models”. In:2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV). 2023, pp. 2426–2436.doi: 10.1109/ICCV51070.2023.00230

    work page doi:10.1109/iccv51070.2023.00230 2023

  26. [26]

    Leo Gao et al.The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modeling. arXiv. 2021.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2101.00027

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2101.00027 2021

  27. [27]

    Supportpoolofexpertsprogramme

    Enrico Glerean.Fundamentals of Secure AI Systems with Personal Data. Supportpoolofexpertsprogramme. 2025.url: https://www.edpb.europa. eu/system/files/2025-06/spe-training-on-ai-and-data-protection- technical_en.pdf

    2025

  28. [28]

    A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies

    Maria J. Grant and Andrew Booth. “A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies”. In:Health Information & Libraries Journal26.2 (2009), pp. 91–108.doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009. 00848.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009 2009

  29. [29]

    William Hackett et al.Bypassing LLM Guardrails: An Empirical Analy- sis of Evasion Attacks against Prompt Injection and Jailbreak Detection Systems. arXiv. 2025.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2504.11168

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2504.11168 2025

  30. [30]

    A Decision-Making Process to Implement the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ in Machine Learning

    Katie Hawkins et al. “A Decision-Making Process to Implement the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’ in Machine Learning”. In:Privacy Technologies and Pol- icy. APF 2023. Ed. by Kai Rannenberg, Prokopios Drogkaris, and Cédric Lauradoux. Vol. 13888. 2024, pp. 20–38.doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-61089- 9_2

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-61089- 2023

  31. [31]

    SSRN Electronic Journal

    Aspen Hopkins et al.AI Supply Chains. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2024. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4789403

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.4789403 2024

  32. [32]

    Recourse, Repair, Reparation, & Prevention: A Stakeholder Analysis of AI Supply Chains

    Aspen Hopkins et al. “Recourse, Repair, Reparation, & Prevention: A Stakeholder Analysis of AI Supply Chains”. In:Proceedings of the 2025 14 Graßhoff et al. ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 2025, pp. 209–227.doi: 10.1145/3715275.3732017

    work page doi:10.1145/3715275.3732017 2025

  33. [33]

    and Zhang, Xuyun , title =

    Hongsheng Hu et al. “Membership Inference Attacks on Machine Learning: A Survey”. In:ACM Computing Surveys54.11s (2022), pp. 1–37.doi: 10.1145/3523273

    work page doi:10.1145/3523273 2022

  34. [34]

    Are Large Pre- Trained Language Models Leaking Your Personal Information?

    Jie Huang, Hanyin Shao, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. “Are Large Pre- Trained Language Models Leaking Your Personal Information?” In:Find- ings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022. 2022, pp. 2038–2047.doi: 10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.148. [35]Hugging Face – The AI community building the future.url: https:// huggingface.co/ (visi...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.findings-emnlp.148 2022

  35. [36]

    Khasentino, J., Belyaeva, A., Liu, X., Yang, Z., Furlotte, N

    Ziwei Ji et al. “Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation”. In:ACM Computing Surveys55.12(2023),pp.1–38.doi:10.1145/3571730

    work page doi:10.1145/3571730 2023

  36. [37]

    Algorithms that forget: Machine unlearning and the right to erasure

    Bjørn Aslak Juliussen, Jon Petter Rui, and Dag Johansen. “Algorithms that forget: Machine unlearning and the right to erasure”. In:Computer Law & Security Review51 (2023).doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105885

    work page doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2023.105885 2023

  37. [38]

    ABC News

    Anna Kelsey-Sugg and Damien Carrick.AI hallucinations caused artificial intelligence to falsely describe these people as criminals. ABC News. Nov. 2024.url: https://abc.net.au/news/2024-11-04/ai-artificial-intelligence- hallucinations-defamation-chatgpt/104518612 (visited on 04/21/2026)

    arXiv 2024

  38. [39]

    ArtificialIntelligenceandtheGDPR: Inevitable Nemeses?

    AleksandrKesaandTanelKerikmäe.“ArtificialIntelligenceandtheGDPR: Inevitable Nemeses?” In:TalTech Journal of European Studies10.3 (2020), pp. 68–90.doi: 10.1515/bjes-2020-0022

    work page doi:10.1515/bjes-2020-0022 2020

  39. [40]

    R., McLeod, A

    Jennifer King et al.User Privacy and Large Language Models: An Analysis of Frontier Developers’ Privacy Policies.arXiv.2025.doi:10.48550/arXiv. 2509.05382

    work page internal anchor Pith review doi:10.48550/arxiv 2025

  40. [41]

    2025.url: https://datenschutzkonferenz-online.de/media/ oh/DSK-OH_KI-Systeme.pdf

    Konferenz der unabhängigen Datenschutzaufsichtsbehörden des Bundes und der Länder.Orientierungshilfe zu empfohlenen technischen und or- ganisatorischen Maßnahmen bei der Entwicklung und beim Betrieb von KI-Systemen. 2025.url: https://datenschutzkonferenz-online.de/media/ oh/DSK-OH_KI-Systeme.pdf

    2025

  41. [42]

    Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Model

    Kenneth Li et al. “Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Model”. In:Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. Vol. 36. 2023, pp. 41451–41530

    2023

  42. [43]

    A survey on machine unlearning: Techniques and new emerged privacy risks

    Hengzhu Liu et al. “A survey on machine unlearning: Techniques and new emerged privacy risks”. In:Journal of Information Security and Applica- tions90 (2025).doi: 10.1016/j.jisa.2025.104010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jisa.2025.104010 2025

  43. [44]

    Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivity

    Yao Lu et al. “Fantastically Ordered Prompts and Where to Find Them: Overcoming Few-Shot Prompt Order Sensitivity”. In:Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers).2022,pp.8086–8098.doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl- long.556. Rectification and erasure under GDPR in ML supply chains 15

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl- 2022

  44. [45]

    Meta.Celebrating 1 Billion Downloads of Llama. Mar. 2025.url: https: //about.fb.com/news/2025/03/celebrating-1-billion-downloads-llama/ (visited on 04/21/2026)

    2025

  45. [46]

    Varia- tional Bayesian Unlearning

    Quoc Phong Nguyen, Bryan Kian Hsiang Low, and Patrick Jaillet. “Varia- tional Bayesian Unlearning”. In:Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems33 (2020), pp. 16025–16036

    2020

  46. [47]

    A Survey of Machine Unlearning

    Thanh Tam Nguyen et al. “A Survey of Machine Unlearning”. In:ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology16.5 (2025), pp. 1–46. doi: 10.1145/3749987

    work page doi:10.1145/3749987 2025

  47. [48]

    Martin Pawelczyk, Seth Neel, and Himabindu Lakkaraju.In-Context Un- learning: Language Models as Few Shot Unlearners. arXiv. 2023.doi: 10. 48550/arXiv.2310.07579. [50]Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free mo...

    arXiv 2023

  48. [49]

    A Survey of Privacy Attacks in Ma- chine Learning

    Maria Rigaki and Sebastian Garcia. “A Survey of Privacy Attacks in Ma- chine Learning”. In:ACM Computing Surveys56.4 (2024), pp. 1–34.doi: 10.1145/3624010

    work page doi:10.1145/3624010 2024

  49. [50]

    Exploring the Landscape of Machine Unlearning: A Comprehensive Survey and Taxonomy

    Thanveer Shaik et al. “Exploring the Landscape of Machine Unlearning: A Comprehensive Survey and Taxonomy”. In:IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems36.7 (2025), pp. 11676–11696.doi: 10. 1109/TNNLS.2024.3486109

    arXiv 2025

  50. [51]

    Amer Sinha et al.VaultGemma: A Differentially Private Gemma Model. arXiv. 2025.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2510.15001

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.15001 2025

  51. [52]

    Teodora Musatoiu.How to use the moderation API. Mar. 2024.url: https: //developers.openai.com/cookbook/examples/how_to_use_moderation

    2024

  52. [53]

    Guardrail

    PratikshaThakeretal.Guardrail Baselines for Unlearning in LLMs.arXiv. 2024.doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2403.03329

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.03329 2024

  53. [54]

    AI Regulation Through the Lens of Fundamental Rights: How Well Does the GDPR Address the Challenges Posed by AI?

    Fabienne Ufert. “AI Regulation Through the Lens of Fundamental Rights: How Well Does the GDPR Address the Challenges Posed by AI?” In: European Papers5.2 (2020), pp. 1087–1097.doi: 10.15166/2499-8249/394

    work page doi:10.15166/2499-8249/394 2020

  54. [55]

    Humansforget, machines remember: Artificial intelligence and the Right to Be Forgotten

    EduardFoschVillaronga,PeterKieseberg,andTiffanyLi.“Humansforget, machines remember: Artificial intelligence and the Right to Be Forgotten”. In:Computer Law & Security Review34.2 (2018), pp. 304–313.doi: 10. 1016/j.clsr.2017.08.007. 16 Graßhoff et al

    2018

  55. [56]

    A Comprehensive Survey of Continual Learning: The- ory, Method and Application

    Liyuan Wang et al. “A Comprehensive Survey of Continual Learning: The- ory, Method and Application”. In:IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analy- sis and Machine Intelligence46.8 (2024), pp. 5362–5383.doi: 10.1109/ TPAMI.2024.3367329

    arXiv 2024

  56. [57]

    Continual Learning: A Review of Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions

    Buddhi Wickramasinghe, Gobinda Saha, and Kaushik Roy. “Continual Learning: A Review of Techniques, Challenges, and Future Directions”. In: IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence5.6 (2024), pp. 2526–2546. doi: 10.1109/TAI.2023.3339091

    work page doi:10.1109/tai.2023.3339091 2024

  57. [58]

    Machine Unlearning: Solutions and Challenges

    Jie Xu et al. “Machine Unlearning: Solutions and Challenges”. In:IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence8.3(2024), pp. 2150–2168.doi: 10.1109/TETCI.2024.3379240

    work page doi:10.1109/tetci.2024.3379240 2024

  58. [59]

    Towards Reliable Forgetting: A Survey on Machine Un- learning Verification

    Lulu Xue et al. “Towards Reliable Forgetting: A Survey on Machine Un- learning Verification”. In:ACM Computing Surveys58.12 (2026), pp. 1–35. doi: 10.1145/3807451

    work page doi:10.1145/3807451 2026

  59. [60]

    A survey on federated learning

    Chen Zhang et al. “A survey on federated learning”. In:Knowledge-Based Systems216 (2021).doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2021.106775

    work page doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2021.106775 2021

  60. [61]

    Right to be forgotten in the Era of large language models: implications, challenges, and solutions

    Dawen Zhang et al. “Right to be forgotten in the Era of large language models: implications, challenges, and solutions”. In:AI and Ethics5.3 (2025), pp. 2445–2454.doi: 10.1007/s43681-024-00573-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00573-9 2025

  61. [62]

    To be forgotten or to be fair: unveiling fairness im- plications of machine unlearning methods

    Dawen Zhang et al. “To be forgotten or to be fair: unveiling fairness im- plications of machine unlearning methods”. In:AI and Ethics4.1 (2024), pp. 83–93.doi: 10.1007/s43681-023-00398-y. Open Access.This manuscript is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (https://creativecommon...

    work page doi:10.1007/s43681-023-00398-y 2024