mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

The Space Complexity of Learning-Unlearning Algorithms

arXiv 2506.13048 ↗First posted 16 Jun 2025cs.LGcited by 2

On the map: LLM safety and security → Machine unlearning

Abstract (arXiv)

We study the memory complexity of machine unlearning algorithms that provide strong data deletion guarantees to the users. Formally, consider an algorithm for a particular learning task that initially receives a training dataset. Then, after learning, it receives data deletion requests from a subset of users (of arbitrary size), and the goal of unlearning is to perform the task as if the learner never received the data of deleted users. In this paper, we ask how many bits of storage are needed to be able to delete certain training samples at a later time. We focus on the task of realizability testing, where the goal is to check whether the remaining training samples are realizable within a given hypothesis class (H). Toward that end, we first provide a negative result showing that the VC dimension is not a characterization of the space complexity of unlearning. In particular, we provide a hypothesis class with constant VC dimension (and Littlestone dimension), but for which any unlearning algorithm for realizability testing needs to store (Omega(n))-bits, where (n) denotes the size of the initial training dataset. In fact, we provide a stronger separation by showing that for any hypothesis class (H), the amount of information that the learner needs to store, so as to perform unlearning later, is lower bounded by the textiteluder dimension of (H), a combinatorial notion always larger than the VC dimension. We complement the lower bound with an upper bound in terms of the star number of the underlying hypothesis class, albeit in a stronger ticketed-memory model proposed by Ghazi et al. (2023). Since the star number for a hypothesis class is never larger than its Eluder dimension, our work highlights a fundamental separation between central and ticketed memory models for machine unlearning.

Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Machine unlearning, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. First posted on arXiv 16 Jun 2025.

Builds on

0 of 0 references.

No references here yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.

2 papers.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025When to Forget? Complexity Trade-offs in Machine Unlearning
  2. 2021Remember What You Want to Forget: Algorithms for Machine Unlearning
  3. 2026Auditing of Unlearning Algorithms
  4. 2026Why Forget-Only Unlearning Needs Memorization
  5. 2024The Utility and Complexity of in- and out-of-Distribution Machine Unlearning
  6. 2022Algorithms that Approximate Data Removal: New Results and Limitations
  7. 2025Mo' Memory, Mo' Problems: Stream-Native Machine Unlearning
  8. 2026Unmerge: Efficient Machine Unlearning via Task Arithmetic