mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Bounding Retraining Equivalence and the Deletion Floor in Materials Machine Unlearning

arXiv 2609.35635 ↗First posted 28 Sep 2026cs.LG cond-mat.mtrl-sci quant-phcited by 0

On the map: LLM safety and security → Machine unlearning

Abstract (arXiv)

In materials machine learning, closely related retained structures can sustain accurate property predictions even after removing a specific record, rendering post-deletion prediction error an ambiguous metric for machine unlearning. To resolve this ambiguity, we define the deletion floor as the expected target loss under a specified retraining procedure at the deleted request. Standard indistinguishability constraints yield a sharp interval bounding an update's target loss around this baseline reference. Theoretically, a conditional neighbor bound links a low deletion floor directly to retained fit, prediction regularity, and local label agreement, while an exact ridge identity isolates residual fit from the prediction change induced by record deletion. Empirically, controlled redundancy sweeps show an ≈ 8× drop in median normalized retraining loss when one retained relative remains after deletion. Across two distinct fitting regimes in a paired Materials Project study, the lower-floor regime also exhibits a larger prediction change on more than 50% of the shared requests. Systematic comparisons against approximate updates and the original model decouple deliberate target suppression from preserved overall model utility. Consequently, request-level unlearning evaluations should report reference loss, prediction change, and retained utility together, interpreting post-deletion accuracy against what retraining itself leaves behind.

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 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 28 Sep 2026.

Builds on

12 of 22 references.

Closest ancestors · 10

Same direction, newest first

  1. 2026Is your algorithm unlearning or untraining?9 Apr
  2. 2026Machine Unlearning under Retain-Forget Entanglement27 Mar
  3. 2025Distributional Machine Unlearning via Selective Data Removal20 Jul
  4. 2025Data Duplication: A Novel Multi-Purpose Attack Paradigm in Machine Unlearning28 Jan
  5. 2024Evaluating Deep Unlearning in Large Language Models19 Oct
  6. 2024Are we making progress in unlearning? Findings from the first NeurIPS unlearning competition13 Jun
  7. 2024What makes unlearning hard and what to do about it3 Jun
  8. 2024Inexact Unlearning Needs More Careful Evaluations to Avoid a False Sense of Privacy2 Mar
  9. 2023Towards Unbounded Machine Unlearning20 Feb
  10. 2021Remember What You Want to Forget: Algorithms for Machine Unlearning4 Mar

Other references · 2

  1. 2019Certified Data Removal from Machine Learning Modelscited by 535
  2. 2013The Composition Theorem for Differential Privacycited by 297

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2026Distance Is Not Enough: Forget-Retain Alignment Gap Predicts LLM Relearning Robustness
  2. 2024Attribute-to-Delete: Machine Unlearning via Datamodel Matching
  3. 2026Forgetting Has Neighbors: Localized Collateral Forgetting in Machine Unlearning
  4. 2026PURGE: Projected Unlearning via Retain-Guided Erasure
  5. 2025Learning to Unlearn while Retaining: Combating Gradient Conflicts in Machine Unlearning
  6. 2026Efficient Unlearning through Maximizing Relearning Convergence Delay
  7. 2026Why Some Models Resist Unlearning: A Linear Stability Perspective
  8. 2025REMIND: Input Loss Landscapes Reveal Residual Memorization in Post-Unlearning LLMs