On the Necessity of Auditable Algorithmic Definitions for Machine
  Unlearning
  Machine unlearning, i.e. having a model forget about some of its training
data, has become increasingly more important as privacy legislation promotes
variants of the right-to-be-forgotten. In the context of deep learning,
approaches for machine unlearning are broadly categorized into two classes:
exact unlearning methods, where an entity has formally removed the data point's
impact on the model by retraining the model from scratch, and approximate
unlearning, where an entity approximates the model parameters one would obtain
by exact unlearning to save on compute costs. In this paper, we first show that
the definition that underlies approximate unlearning, which seeks to prove the
approximately unlearned model is close to an exactly retrained model, is
incorrect because one can obtain the same model using different datasets. Thus
one could unlearn without modifying the model at all. We then turn to exact
unlearning approaches and ask how to verify their claims of unlearning. Our
results show that even for a given training trajectory one cannot formally
prove the absence of certain data points used during training. We thus conclude
that unlearning is only well-defined at the algorithmic level, where an
entity's only possible auditable claim to unlearning is that they used a
particular algorithm designed to allow for external scrutiny during an audit.
