Label-Agnostic Forgetting: A Supervision-Free Unlearning in Deep Models
Shaofei Shen, Chenhao Zhang, Yawen Zhao, Alina Bialkowski, Weitong, Tony Chen, Miao Xu

TL;DR
This paper introduces Label-Agnostic Forgetting (LAF), a supervision-free method for unlearning in deep models that effectively removes information from forgotten data without requiring labels, using a variational and contrastive approach.
Contribution
The paper presents a novel supervision-free unlearning method that operates at the representation level, enabling effective data removal without label annotations and outperforming supervised baselines in semi-supervised settings.
Findings
LAF achieves comparable performance to supervised methods in unlearning tasks.
LAF outperforms fully supervised baselines in semi-supervised scenarios.
The approach effectively removes information from forgotten data without labels.
Abstract
Machine unlearning aims to remove information derived from forgotten data while preserving that of the remaining dataset in a well-trained model. With the increasing emphasis on data privacy, several approaches to machine unlearning have emerged. However, these methods typically rely on complete supervision throughout the unlearning process. Unfortunately, obtaining such supervision, whether for the forgetting or remaining data, can be impractical due to the substantial cost associated with annotating real-world datasets. This challenge prompts us to propose a supervision-free unlearning approach that operates without the need for labels during the unlearning process. Specifically, we introduce a variational approach to approximate the distribution of representations for the remaining data. Leveraging this approximation, we adapt the original model to eliminate information from the…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2024 poster
* Originality: This paper proposes a novel approach to unlearn without the need of labels and retraining process. They first capture the distribution of training data and forgotten data then unlearn forgotten data at the representation level. Then, through alignment with contrastive learning, they recover the shift for remaining data back to original model. These two steps, remove then recover, are original and novel, especially compared to other supervised approaches. * Quality: Though its low
* The first weakness of this framework is its efficiency. To capture data distribution, a certain amount of instance $x$ and two distribution modeling are needed. Though the framework doesn't need retraining process, framework efficiency and computational workload are encouraged to study and present in the paper. * The quality of representation extractor may affect framework performance. More representation extractors are needed to be considered to enhance the soundness of this method. * The av
This paper introduces a novel perspective on the unlearning problem by addressing a scenario where labels may be available during training but become inaccessible during the unlearning phase. This specific problem formulation is different from traditional approaches, which assume continuous access to labelled data throughout the unlearning process. This unique scenario could be a crucial addition to current unlearning, as it reflects real-world situations where label information may be sensitive
The explanation of the contrastive loss component, particularly the utilization of the "sim loss," lacks comprehensive coverage, leaving room for confusion regarding which sim loss should be used and why use it. While the paper is generally well-structured and articulated, there are instances where certain statements could benefit from further elucidation for improved clarity. Specific details are highlighted in the "Questions" section.
1. Quite a relevant problem in real-world applications. 2. Does not require information about the labels. 3. Experiments are extensive. The method shows good performance in the absence of data labels.
1. No proper explanation in the optimization process. Why some terms are dropped and even if they are considered what could have happened? 2. I think there is a typo in equation 1. The distribution should be P_r instead of P. Similarly for D. Please change the typo. If not please provide an explanation. A lot of notational errors are there such as from argmin equation.8 suddenly becomes argmax in equation.9. 3. There is also a zero-shot method of unlearning which does not assume access to the d
Code & Models
Videos
Taxonomy
TopicsMultimodal Machine Learning Applications
