mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

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

arXiv 2302.03350 ↗First posted 7 Feb 2023cs.SE cs.AIcited by 18

On the map: LLM safety and security → Machine unlearning

Abstract (arXiv)

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.

Key facts. Cited by 18 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Machine unlearning, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 22 of its 58 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Feb 2023.

Builds on

22 of 58 references.

References · 22

  1. 2016Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learningcited by 2,000
  2. 2019A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 1,911
  3. 2019Machine Unlearningcited by 1,020
  4. 2016Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instrumentscited by 671
  5. 2019Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Net: Selective Forgetting in Deep Networkscited by 599
  6. 2019Certified Data Removal from Machine Learning Modelscited by 512
  7. 2017Algorithmic decision making and the cost of fairnesscited by 402
  8. 2017Preventing Fairness Gerrymandering: Auditing and Learning for Subgroup Fairnesscited by 381
  9. 2020Amnesiac Machine Learningcited by 305
  10. 2020Approximate Data Deletion from Machine Learning Modelscited by 250
  11. 2019Machine Learning Testing: Survey, Landscapes and Horizonscited by 213
  12. 2020The Computational Limits of Deep Learningcited by 188
10 more
  1. 2020Forgetting Outside the Box: Scrubbing Deep Networks of Information Accessible from Input-Output Observationscited by 171
  2. 2021Graph Unlearningcited by 129
  3. 2020Machine Unlearning: Linear Filtration for Logit-based Classifierscited by 89
  4. 2018Automated Directed Fairness Testingcited by 77
  5. 2022Recommendation Unlearningcited by 71
  6. 2020Do the Machine Learning Models on a Crowd Sourced Platform Exhibit Bias? An Empirical Study on Model Fairnesscited by 52
  7. 2019Automatic Testing and Improvement of Machine Translationcited by 35
  8. 2020Coded Machine Unlearningcited by 35
  9. 2022Enforcing Group Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: Utility Maximization Under Sufficiencycited by 19
  10. 2018Taming the Cross Entropy Losscited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 5; 2024: 3; 2025: 8; 2026: 2.

18 papers.

Sort:

By area: