Can You Delete a Year of Market Data? Machine Unlearning Against Exact Retraining Oracles
Mirrored from arXiv — Machine Learning for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.
Computer Science > Machine Learning
Title:Can You Delete a Year of Market Data? Machine Unlearning Against Exact Retraining Oracles
Abstract:When a data license expires, deleting stored records does not remove influence encoded in a trained forecaster. Machine unlearning seeks to remove this influence without retraining. We benchmark temporal unlearning with 3,200 paired references trained on all data and oracles retrained without the requested period. The grid covers five architectures, four rolling folds, five deletable years, and three experimental deletion levels on an S&P 500 volatility panel. The 2020 COVID crisis year produces the largest memorization gap for every architecture. Removing it improves all three deployable models in every fold, with the largest improvement in the 2022 bear market, while the two non-deployable models respond inconsistently. The target for approximate unlearning is the oracle, not low predictive accuracy on the deleted period. In one Transformer cell, an oracle that never trained on 2020 still predicts it at an information coefficient of 0.51, compared with 0.55 for the reference; pushing predictions toward noise reduces test skill. Across twelve deployable architecture-method pairs, only TSMixer with the hinge method remains near the oracle in every fold, closing 74-118% of the reference-to-oracle gap without a measurable loss of test skill. Method rankings vary across architectures and rolling windows. Audit separation rises with prior memorization but can remain small after exact deletion. The window-level loss comparison reaches at most 0.69, and treating stock-level windows as independent inflates the absolute t-statistic by a median factor of 1.9. These results call for an explicit deletion scope, oracle validation for the relevant architecture and window, and power-aware auditing.
| Subjects: | Machine Learning (cs.LG); Statistical Finance (q-fin.ST) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2609.26242 [cs.LG] |
| (or arXiv:2609.26242v1 [cs.LG] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.26242
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
|
Access Paper:
- View PDF
- HTML (experimental)
- TeX Source
Current browse context:
References & Citations
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
Demos
Recommenders and Search Tools
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
More from arXiv — Machine Learning
-
Stable and Faithful Explanations for Knowledge Tracing
Sep 25
-
SMILESGNN: Interpretable Clinical Toxicity Prediction via SMILES-Graph Cross-Attention Fusion
Sep 25
-
CFD Correction of Open Tip Clearance Flow in a Compressor Cascade Using VAE Latent Space Adaptation
Sep 25
-
CARE: Condition-Aware Representation Regularization for Diffusion Models
Sep 25
Discussion (0)
Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.
Sign in →No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.