The Measure of Deception: An Analysis of Data Forging in Machine Unlearning
On the map: LLM safety and security → Machine unlearning
Abstract (arXiv)
Motivated by privacy regulations and the need to mitigate the effects of harmful data, machine unlearning seeks to modify trained models so that they effectively ``forget'' designated data. A key challenge in verifying unlearning is forging -- adversarially crafting data that mimics the gradient of a target point, thereby creating the appearance of unlearning without actually removing information. To capture this phenomenon, we consider the collection of data points whose gradients approximate a target gradient within tolerance ε -- which we call an ε-forging set -- and develop a framework for its analysis. For linear regression and one-layer neural networks, we show that the Lebesgue measure of this set is small. It scales on the order of ε, and when ε is small enough, εd. More generally, under mild regularity assumptions, we prove that the forging set measure decays as ε(d-r)/2, where d is the data dimension and r<d is the dimension of vector space of right singular vectors corresponding to ``small'' singular values of a variation matrix defined by the model gradients. Extensions to batch SGD and almost-everywhere smooth loss functions yield the same asymptotic scaling. In addition, we establish probability bounds showing that, under non-degenerate data distributions, the likelihood of randomly sampling a forging point is vanishingly small. These results provide evidence that adversarial forging is fundamentally limited and that false unlearning claims can, in principle, be detected.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Placed in Machine unlearning, one of 12 directions in LLM safety and security. Builds on 12 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Sep 2025.
Builds on
12 of 29 references.
Closest ancestors · 8
Same direction, newest first
- 2024Verification of Machine Unlearning is Fragile1 Aug
- 2024Machine Unlearning Fails to Remove Data Poisoning Attacks25 Jun
- 2024Towards Scalable Exact Machine Unlearning Using Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning24 Jun
- 2024Langevin Unlearning: A New Perspective of Noisy Gradient Descent for Machine Unlearning18 Jan
- 2022A Survey of Machine Unlearning6 Sep
- 2021On the Necessity of Auditable Algorithmic Definitions for Machine Unlearning22 Oct
- 2021Adaptive Machine Unlearning8 Jun
- 2021Remember What You Want to Forget: Algorithms for Machine Unlearning4 Mar
Other references · 4
- 2019Machine Unlearningcited by 1,061
- 2020Descent-to-Delete: Gradient-Based Methods for Machine Unlearningcited by 311
- 2018Stochastic subgradient method converges at the rate O(k-1/4) on weakly convex functionscited by 32
- 2019Towards a regularity theory for ReLU networks -- chain rule and global error estimatescited by 8
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026Auditing of Unlearning Algorithms
- 2024Challenging Forgets: Unveiling the Worst-Case Forget Sets in Machine Unlearning
- 2024Machine Unlearning with Minimal Gradient Dependence for High Unlearning Ratios
- 2024Revisiting Machine Unlearning with Dimensional Alignment
- 2026EVE: Efficient Verification of Data Erasure through Customized Perturbation in Approximate Unlearning
- 2026Why Some Models Resist Unlearning: A Linear Stability Perspective
- 2024Gone but Not Forgotten: Improved Benchmarks for Machine Unlearning
- 2025Leveraging Per-Instance Privacy for Machine Unlearning