Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

To Be Forgotten or To Be Fair: Unveiling Fairness Implications of Machine Unlearning Methods

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2302.03350 v2 pith:MSGHTTVX submitted 2023-02-07 cs.SE cs.AI

classification cs.SEcs.AI
keywords fairnessmethodsdatamachineunlearningdeletionthreeamnesiacml
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The right to be forgotten (RTBF) is motivated by the desire of people not to be perpetually disadvantaged by their past deeds. For this, data deletion needs to be deep and permanent, and should be removed from machine learning models. Researchers have proposed machine unlearning algorithms which aim to erase specific data from trained models more efficiently. However, these methods modify how data is fed into the model and how training is done, which may subsequently compromise AI ethics from the fairness perspective. To help software engineers make responsible decisions when adopting these unlearning methods, we present the first study on machine unlearning methods to reveal their fairness implications. We designed and conducted experiments on two typical machine unlearning methods (SISA and AmnesiacML) along with a retraining method (ORTR) as baseline using three fairness datasets under three different deletion strategies. Experimental results show that under non-uniform data deletion, SISA leads to better fairness compared with ORTR and AmnesiacML, while initial training and uniform data deletion do not necessarily affect the fairness of all three methods. These findings have exposed an important research problem in software engineering, and can help practitioners better understand the potential trade-offs on fairness when considering solutions for RTBF.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Covert Attacks on Machine Learning Training in Passively Secure MPC

    cs.CR 2025-05 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    An active adversary can exploit additive error injection in passively secure MPC training to poison models, amplify membership inference, reduce fairness, and reconstruct exact training data.

Pith tools