Source-linked AI summary

Machine Unlearning for Federated Socially Fair k-Means Clustering

Aravind Reddy, Deeraj S K, Mohd Wasif Raza, Saurav Prakash

arXiv:2610.13717v1cs.LGcs.DS

TL;DR

Federated socially fair clustering must balance group costs while supporting exact deletion, even though deletion changes global group weights. This paper uses reusable group-separated summaries and same-seed replay; its savings are largest for whole-client withdrawals and modest for individual-record deletions.

  • Problem

    In federated socially fair k-means, deleting records can change group proportions and clustering, while global group weights make local summaries at untouched institutions harder to reuse.

    Source: §1 · pp. 1–2
  • Method

    The method separates each institution's summaries by group, reweights them using current global group sizes, and replays fair refinement with the same seed.

    Source: §1 · p. 2
  • Results

    For whole-client deletion, replay is 35.8× faster than retraining at T = 0 and remains 2.4× and 1.7× faster at one and two fair-refinement rounds; individual-record gains are modest.

    Source: §1 · pp. 2–3
  • Takeaways & Limitations

    Reuse savings depend on deletion unit, refinement budget, and assignment stability; whole-client deletion saves more at low refinement budgets in the reported tests.

    Source: §7 · p. 10

    Group-average squared cost does not establish individual, intersectional, representation, or downstream fairness, and network and dropout costs remain unmeasured.

    Source: §7 · p. 10

Abstract

from arXiv · show

Federated clustering can support applications such as patient stratification across hospitals and customer segmentation across distributed financial datasets. Responsible AI calls for fair representation of demographic groups and support for data deletion, motivated in part by rights such as the GDPR's right to erasure. These goals interact: deleting records can change the balance between groups and alter the clustering of the remaining population. We study exact machine unlearning for federated socially fair $k$-means, whose objective is to minimize the largest group-average squared distance to the nearest center. Our approach keeps separate local summaries for each group, so summaries at unaffected institutions remain valid as global fairness weights change. For two groups, we prove an initialization approximation guarantee independent of client group proportions under ideal sampling, and we show that same-seed replay reproduces retraining exactly. Reuse pays off most when a whole client withdraws: across three datasets, replay is $35.8\times$ faster than retraining for the initialization-only model and remains $2.4\times$ and $1.7\times$ faster with one and two fair-refinement rounds, which improve worst-group cost. For individual record deletions, gains are modest (about $1.06\times$), and certifying cached assignments can cost more than it saves. These results map where exact unlearning can profitably reuse computation. Code and reproducibility materials are available at https://github.com/arareddy/mufsc.

1 INTRODUCTION

The paper studies exact unlearning for federated socially fair k-means, where deletion changes global group weights as well as the data. It reuses group-separated summaries and replay, with savings that vary by deletion unit and refinement budget.

1 INTRODUCTION

  • Deleting a group-g record changes the weight of every remaining group-g record globally, so old cluster statistics do not generally reproduce retraining.Locally balancing groups can over-weight a minority group relative to the global objective.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • The approach keeps each institution's group summaries independent of global group sizes, allowing only touched summaries to be rebuilt before server reweighting and resampling.Fair refinement alternates nearest-center assignment with updates targeting the largest group-average squared distance.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • 35.8×, 2.4×, and 1.7×: replay is faster than retraining for whole-client deletion with zero, one, and two fair-refinement rounds, respectively.The three-dataset comparisons use the same budget; the refinement rounds improve worst-group cost.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • Same-seed replay reproduces retraining's entire indexed center trajectory when preprocessing and encoding are fixed and both groups are nonempty.All 810 replay comparisons in the original local tabular and public-Census suites match retraining.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • Group-separated initialization has an expected O(log2 k) approximation factor plus a quantization term, independent of client group proportions under ideal independent sampling.Locally balanced merged summaries can incur a loss linear in the local/global mismatch on a specific construction.Source: §1 · p. 2
  • Direct replay’s fresh/direct algorithm-time ratios are 1.061 and 1.056; certifying cached assignments has mixed timing outcomes but increases aggregate end-to-end cost in both suites.Source: §1 · p. 3

2 RELATED WORK

Prior work supplies socially fair clustering objectives, coreset guarantees, and federated representative aggregation, but does not combine the paper's group normalization with exact replay of fair refinement.

2 RELATED WORK

  • Socially fair k-means defines the objective, while a union of per-group strong coresets preserves it for every center query; this paper's anchors instead support initialization and deletion reuse.The cited objective is from Ghadiri et al. (2021) and Abbasi et al. (2021); the coreset result is from Gorantla et al. (2023).Source: §2 · p. 3
  • Closest federated precedents aggregate local representatives or use two-level seeding, server clustering, and secure aggregation; this work adds global demographic normalization and exact replay of fair refinement.The architectural precedents are Dennis et al. (2021) and Pan et al. (2023).Source: §2 · p. 3
  • Prior exact-unlearning methods distinguish model-output from model-and-state targets, whereas this paper targets the indexed model trajectory and studies certificates for a stipulated cache and fallback.Center-movement bounds and additive count–sum–squared-sum statistics are established techniques.Source: §2 · p. 3

3 PROBLEM SETTING AND TRAINING PROCEDURE

Training minimizes the worst group-average nearest-center squared distance on fixed represented data. It builds reusable group-specific local summaries, then performs exact-statistics-based guarded fair refinement.

3 PROBLEM SETTING AND TRAINING PROCEDURE

  • The objective is the maximum of the two demographic groups' average squared distances to their nearest centers, with each group's records weighted by its global size.Groups are fixed record attributes; clusters are learned and may contain records from both groups.Source: §3 · p. 3
  • Exact unlearning replays one fully specified seeded training procedure, conditional on fixed preprocessing and represented data; ordering, tie-breaking, empty clusters, and degenerate cases must be fixed.Preprocessing is fitted once and retained, and represented features use a fixed-point grid.Source: §3 · p. 3

3.1 PHASE I: GROUP-SEPARATED INITIALIZATION (SPLITGROUP-2K)

  • Each nonempty client-group slice selects up to k D2-sampling representatives and reports their multiplicities, producing at most 2k anchors per client.The server alone applies current global group sizes when weighting anchors and selecting k initial centers.Source: §3.1 · pp. 3–4

3.2 PHASE II: EXACT STATISTICS AND A GUARDED FAIR UPDATE

  • Each refinement round assigns records to nearest centers, aggregates exact count, sum, and squared-norm statistics by group-cell, and proposes a fair center update.The finite guarded update selects among endpoints and bisection candidates, accepting one only if the fixed-partition objective does not increase.Source: §3.2 · p. 4

4 APPROXIMATION AND REFINEMENT THEORY

The theory analyzes group-separated initialization, compares it with merged summaries under group heterogeneity, and establishes monotonicity for guarded fair refinement.

4 APPROXIMATION AND REFINEMENT THEORY

  • Under ideal sampling, SPLITGROUP-2K has an O(log2 k) initialization approximation factor plus quantization error, independent of client group proportions.The guarantee assumes two nonempty groups and the stated sampling and grid conditions.Source: §4 · pp. 4–5
  • MERGED-1K's expected G/G* ratio is O(κ log2 k) at γ = 0, and a two-client construction gives lower bounds κ/2 for G and κ/4 for Φ.These lower-bound constants apply to k = 1, γ = 0, and Ta = 0, not to MERGED-2K or the final refined model.Source: §4 · p. 5
  • The MERGED-1K lower bound arises when a mixed client's minority group receives half its local sampling probability despite contributing little globally; split-group sampling avoids this mismatch.The lower-bound construction is scoped to MERGED-1K.Source: §4 · p. 5
  • At matched two-anchor budgets for k = 1, MERGED-2K and SPLITGROUP-2K have different expected initialization ratios, but one full-data fair-refinement round removes the gap.On the stated three-location construction, their expected G/G* ratios are (κ + 5)/3 and 2, respectively.Source: §4 · p. 5
  • Federated and centralized guarded updates return the same indexed centers with exact aggregated statistics and matching deterministic settings; assignment followed by the guarded update cannot increase Φ.The guard matters because finite bisection without it can worsen an exactly represented incumbent.Source: §4 · p. 5

5 EXACT BATCH UNLEARNING

Exact batch replay aims to reproduce fresh training on the retained data, using exact statistics and selectively reused assignments. Its guarantees depend on deterministic replay conditions, and a scoped construction shows that certification can duplicate assignment work.

5.1 EXACT ARITHMETIC AND CHECKPOINT STATE

  • Replay stores slice anchors, global group sizes, indexed centers, exact round statistics, and cached labels and distances for each point.Counts, vector sums, and squared-norm sums are accumulated exactly so deleting a contribution reverses it without relying on rounded reductions.Source: §5.1 · p. 6

5.2 ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATES

  • A movement-bound certificate can verify that a cached nearest-center label remains uniquely correct after centers move; failed certification does not prove the label changed.The all-competitor test compares the winner’s distance bound against every competitor, while ties or numerical ambiguity take the exact-assignment path.Source: §5.2 · p. 6

5.3 REPLAY ALGORITHM AND EXACTNESS

  • Replay reuses untouched summaries, recomputes touched slices and server initialization, then reconstructs retained statistics through exact corrections during refinement rounds.If more than half of a round’s attempted certificates fail, replay discards that round’s patches, rebuilds statistics, and assigns directly thereafter.Source: §5.3 · pp. 6–7
  • Under the stated deterministic rules and a valid batch request, replay reproduces the indexed center trajectory and final model for each fixed seed.The proof matches the initializer and uses exact signed corrections across rounds; abandonment replaces certification with direct assignment.Source: §5.3 · pp. 6–7

5.4 WHAT REPLAY COSTS, AND WHEN REUSE FAILS

  • For the specified sampler, indexed cache, and strict-majority fallback, a legal deletion can cause expected Ω(n) round-zero certificate failures and duplicated assignments.This is a policy-specific obstruction under ideal random words and the stated parameter conditions, not a universal lower bound or explanation of observed timing.Source: §5.4 · p. 7

6 EXPERIMENTS

Experiments compare exact replay with fresh training across record and whole-client deletions, refinement budgets, and update rules. Reuse is strongest for whole-client withdrawals at low refinement budgets; fair refinement lowers worst-group cost while increasing other costs in the tested comparisons.

Validation and timing

  • All 810 P2 and P3 replay comparisons matched fresh training exactly in every indexed center and raw statistic; small instances were also checked against an independent integer/rational oracle.The experiments used separate processes for fresh training and three replay variants; P2 and P3 comprised 175 and 95 trials, respectively.Source: §6 · p. 7

P1: the scoped heterogeneity effect

  • The scoped heterogeneity experiment tested eight κ values and four methods with 10,000 seed indices each; at κ = 128, MERGED-1K had mean G/G∗ = 63.5310.The reported comparison gives 2.2375 for SPLITGROUP-2K and 1.9034 for anchor-slot-matched MERGED-2K; the growing MERGED-1K loss supports Theorem 2.Source: §6 · p. 8

P2/P3: does replay save time?

  • Direct won most algorithm-time comparisons, while certification increased aggregate end-to-end cost in both suites.Useful saved coverage was 0.760% in P2 and 1.351% in P3; attempted certificate acceptance did not necessarily translate into saved work.Source: §6 · p. 8, Table 1 · p. 8

Refinement budget and record deletion

  • At T = 0, 1, 2, Direct’s total algorithm-time ratios were 4.12/1.74/1.42 for Adult, 1.39/1.23/1.16 for Bank, and 3.70/1.97/1.59 for Credit.The 135 distinct replay comparisons passed; refinement lowered worst-group cost while reducing relative reuse gains, and both certificate variants fell back in round zero at positive budgets.Source: §6 · p. 8

Whole-client deletion

  • 35.79× for compact replay at T = 0 and 17.79× for direct replay; canonical Direct retains 2.357× at T = 1 and 1.696× at T = 2 for whole-client deletion.Canonical Direct won all 15 cases at each positive budget, and all 90 distinct positive-budget replay comparisons matched fresh trajectories and exact statistics.Source: §6 · pp. 8–9, Table 2 · p. 9

Which quality improves?

  • At T = 2, fair updates reduced worst-group cost by 3.2–5.1% and increased population-average cost by 0.5–4.7% across dataset/population means.At T = 1 and T = 2, worst-group cost fell in all 30 cases, while population-average and larger-group costs rose in every case.Source: §6 · p. 9, Table 3 · p. 9

7 LIMITATIONS, ETHICS, AND CONCLUSION

The paper limits its exactness and timing claims to specified data, preprocessing, and experimental conditions, and notes that several practical federation and security costs remain unmeasured. Its conclusion connects reusable computation to deletion unit, refinement budget, and assignment stability.

Limitations

  • Exactness applies to a fixed represented dataset and preprocessing state; it does not remove a record’s influence on a fitted scaler or vocabulary.The canonical learner and main experiments are binary, while a multi-group prototype appears in the appendix.Source: §7 · p. 9

Limitations and ethics

  • Timing evidence is limited by warm OS caches, nondedicated hardware, and five seeds; network, secure aggregation, stragglers, dropouts, durable commits, and recovery remain unmeasured.Group-average squared cost does not establish individual, intersectional, representation, or downstream fairness, and federation alone does not provide differential privacy or cryptographic erasure.Source: §7 · pp. 9–10

Conclusion

  • Reuse savings depend on deletion unit, refinement budget, and assignment stability; in the reported tests, whole-client deletion saved more at low refinement budgets, while fewer rounds raised worst-group cost.The conclusion also states that direct replay saved modestly in the original suites and certification raised aggregate end-to-end cost.Source: §7 · p. 10

AI USE STATEMENT

The authors report using generative AI throughout theory development, experiments, literature work, and manuscript preparation, while taking responsibility for the paper and its artifacts.

AI Use Statement

  • Generative AI tools supported theory, experiments, literature synthesis, drafting, editing, and figure and table preparation; the authors take responsibility for the resulting work and artifacts.The statement says reported measurements came from executed programs and computational checks included code-based tests and numerical comparisons.Source: AI USE STATEMENT · p. 10

REPRODUCIBILITY STATEMENT

The reproducibility materials document the experiment inputs and procedures, while the appendices specify and analyze the deterministic guarded update and the split-group initialization guarantee. The update recovers its fixed-partition objective from exact sufficient statistics, but finite search can miss the optimum.

REPRODUCIBILITY STATEMENT

  • The repository and versioned supplement provide code, processed inputs, reconstruction recipes, and a matrix distinguishing packaging checks from full campaigns.The separate manuscript source rebuilds the document from saved tables and figures without retraining.Source: REPRODUCIBILITY STATEMENT · p. 10
  • Lean 4/mathlib proofs check selected mathematical models under explicit hypotheses, not the full paper, executable learner, or empirical measurements.A theorem ledger lists checked statements, hypotheses, and remaining gaps.Source: REPRODUCIBILITY STATEMENT · p. 10

A GUARDED FIXED-PARTITION FAIR UPDATE

A.1 SUFFICIENT STATISTICS AND CLUSTER CASES

  • Exact counts, vector sums, and squared-norm sums recover the full fixed-partition objective, with empty group-cells omitted before normalization.The statistics also distinguish two-group, single-group, and empty clusters.Source: §A.1 · pp. 14–15

A.2 DETERMINISTIC GUARDED SEARCH

  • The deterministic search evaluates endpoints and bisection candidates exactly as represented, then accepts only a candidate that does not worsen the current objective.Rounding can alter search geometry, so the guard applies to the represented candidate rather than relying on an exact convex search.Source: §A.2 · p. 15

A.3 CENTRALIZED EQUIVALENCE AND MONOTONICITY

  • With exact aggregated statistics and matching partition, candidate order, and arithmetic, federated and centralized calls return identical indexed centers.This equivalence is to the declared finite guarded solver, not necessarily the exact convex optimum.Source: §A.3 · p. 15

A.4 FINITE LINE SEARCH CAN INCREASE THE OBJECTIVE

  • Finite bisection can miss the optimum, and an unguarded update can worsen the objective even on exactly represented inputs.The guard rejects the best tested candidate when it exceeds the incumbent cost.Source: §A.4 · p. 16

B PROOF OF THE SPLITGROUP-2K WARM-START GUARANTEE

  • The split-group guarantee bounds expected initial cost by analyzing local record-to-anchor replacement and server sampling separately, then combining their errors on the square-root scale.The stated bounds are independent of group imbalance and client group proportions.Source: B PROOF OF THE SPLITGROUP-2K… · p. 16

B.1 WEIGHTED SAMPLING AND LOCAL ERROR

The proof composes local weighted-sampling error with server-side anchor sampling, then extends the bound to quantization and multiple groups. In contrast, locally balanced mixed-client summaries can incur heterogeneity-dependent loss, with the matching construction restricted to initialization.

B.1 WEIGHTED SAMPLING AND LOCAL ERROR

  • Under ideal independent sampling, weighted D2-sampling transfers the exact-k guarantee αk = 5(ln k + 2) to rational anchor weights, while slice-constant weights bound local replacement error.Slices with at most k records are saturated and have zero replacement error.Source: §B.1 · p. 17

B.2 SERVER COMPOSITION

  • Server composition yields an expected root-cost bound of √αk(√αk + 2) times the optimum by conditioning on local summaries and applying the server sampling guarantee.The argument removes the conditioning with the tower property and Minkowski inequalities.Source: §B.2 · pp. 17–18

B.3 REPRESENTED SNAP ROUNDING

  • The stated quantization constants assume a geometric grid bound; binary64 rounding adds a represented-anchor residual, while γ = 0 has no extra snap-rounding term.The proof can instead use the actual represented-anchor distortion.Source: §B.3 · p. 18

B.4 EXTENSION TO m GROUPS

  • For m nonempty groups, the federated and unlearning-compatible extension has an additive O(mdγ^2 log k) term but does not improve the best known centralized multi-group dependence.Its objective is the maximum group cost.Source: §B.4 · p. 18

C.1 UPPER BOUND

  • For MERGED-1K, locally balanced weights that differ from global weights by κ change the local replacement-error bound, producing a heterogeneity-dependent upper bound.The bound is √αk((1 + √αk)√κ + 1) in root-cost form.Source: C TIGHT HETEROGENEITY LOSS OF THE… · p. 18, §C.1 · p. 19

C.2 MATCHING LOWER BOUND

  • A two-client construction places a small fraction of one group far away, so local balancing can give that fraction half the sampling probability despite its small global weight.The construction realizes the local/global mismatch; its lower-bound claim is restricted to Ta = 0, since no refined witness is proved.Source: §C.2 · p. 19

C.3 A MATCHED-SLOT COMPARISON FOR A SPECIFIC MERGED SAMPLER

The matched-slot construction exhibits a sampler-specific initialization gap, while the later appendices establish assignment-certificate properties, exact replay, and scoped work bounds. The lower-bound and speed claims have explicit boundaries, including initialization-only scope and conditional assumptions.

C.3 A MATCHED-SLOT COMPARISON FOR A SPECIFIC MERGED SAMPLER

  • With matched anchor slots, the specific merged sampler has a pre-refinement gap from SplitGroup-2k; on the construction, endpoint events yield realized ratios 2κ + 3 and κ + 2.One full fair-refinement round maps every valid one-center incumbent in this family to the optimum, so the separation is initialization-only.Source: §C.3 · pp. 19–20

C.4 SCOPE OF THE LOWER BOUND

  • The lower bound applies to the declared merged sampler; a universal claim about k unlabeled real representatives needs a finite-information or geometric-coreset model.Real coordinates can encode group labels in binary digits.Source: §C.4 · p. 20

D ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATES

  • The basic displacement-radius certificate is universally tight for a unique winner, while the exact-norm test is stronger for k = 2 and the runner-up certificate remains O(1) per point.The runner-up test requires precomputing the three largest center shifts and their identities.Source: §D.1 · p. 21, §D.2 · p. 21, D ASSIGNMENT CERTIFICATES · p. 21

D.4 NUMERICALLY SOUND IMPLEMENTATION

  • Certificates accept only strict separation of winner and competitor bounds; numerical ambiguity triggers exact reassignment, preserving soundness at a possible coverage cost.A runner-up-only test without the maximum shift among non-runner-up competitors is unsound.Source: §D.4 · p. 21, §D.3 · p. 21

E EXACT ARITHMETIC AND SAME-SEED REPLAY

  • Same-seed replay matches fresh training’s indexed trajectory by reusing untouched summaries, rerunning touched slices, and exactly patching changed assignments and statistics.Rounded floating-point subtraction need not reproduce a fresh reduction; pointwise equality does not establish a fresh-independent guarantee for requests chosen adaptively from the same seed-dependent checkpoint.Source: §E.2 · p. 22, §E.1 · p. 22

E.3 VALIDITY DOMAIN

  • Deleting an entire global group is excluded because its normalized group weights and objective become undefined; optimizing over retained active groups would define a different map.Deterministic center completion is required when fewer than k distinct positive-weight anchors remain.Source: §E.3 · p. 23

F WORK, COMMUNICATION, AND CONDITIONAL SPEED

  • The replay work bound includes public-call setup and scans, and its conditional Phase-II bound does not imply unconditional end-to-end speed.The unit-cost formula excludes bit-complexity effects, while the simulator does not implement network or secure-aggregation systems.Source: §F.1 · p. 23, §F.2 · p. 24

F.4 EXPECTED TOUCHED-SLICE MASS

  • Under uniform random deletion batches, touched-slice mass depends on slice sizes; concentrated slices or adversarial requests can make it much larger.Margin density alone also does not bound observed numerical failures, which must be charged separately.Source: §F.4 · p. 24, §F.3 · p. 24

F.5 A CONDITIONAL EXPECTED REPLAY THEOREM

This section characterizes replay’s conditional expected-work guarantee and implementation scope, including how a deletion can trigger duplicated assignment work. It also documents extensions, cache rebuilding, validation and execution protocols, cohort provenance, and timing results, including that small certificate-method algorithm-time savings did not yield end-to-end savings.

F.5 A CONDITIONAL EXPECTED REPLAY THEOREM

  • Replay’s expected-work bound is conditional on locally stable behavior and accounts for certificate failures and direct rounds, not an unconditional speed guarantee controlled only by r/n.The stated assumptions are plausible in a stable local basin; margin density alone does not bound B_t.Source: §F.5 · p. 25

F.6 SHARED-WORD SAMPLING AND LINEAR DISCARDED WORK

  • A legal single-record deletion can trigger fallback and duplicate 3m−1 Basic or 2m−1 Runner-up assignments, on a constructed event with probability greater than 1/16.This is specific to the declared FTF-1 sampler, indexed cache, and fallback policy; the shared-word coupling can disagree far more often than the marginal total variation distance suggests.Source: §F.6 · pp. 25–27

G DETERMINISTIC MULTI-GROUP REFINEMENT

  • For more than two groups, the fixed-partition extension uses a convex epigraph formulation and a dual over simplex weights, but its minimizer need not solve the primal minimax objective.A separately specified prototype uses bounded Frank–Wolfe search; exact replay requires reproducing the same deterministic solver, while optimization accuracy remains separate.Source: G DETERMINISTIC MULTI-GROUP REFINEMENT · pp. 27–28

H SEQUENTIAL DELETION AND CACHE PURGING

  • A direct cache rebuild for n−r retained records and T rounds uses (n−r)kT center–point distance queries, but this is an upper bound, not a universal Euclidean lower bound.The released model can match retraining while cached nearest/second-nearest distances remain stale for a revised trajectory; cache reconstruction or purging is a separate operation.Source: H SEQUENTIAL DELETION AND CACHE PURGING · p. 28

I EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOLS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

  • The supplementary release provides implementation source, processed inputs, saved reporting data, and reproduction commands alongside protocols defining evidence scope and uncertainty.The appendix organizes evidence versions, shared timing and work definitions, cohort provenance, and panel methods.Source: I EXPERIMENTAL PROTOCOLS AND… · pp. 28–29

I.1 EVIDENCE VERSIONS AND VALIDATION SCOPE

  • All indexed coordinates and raw integer N, S, SS matched across 525 P2 and 285 P3 fresh-training and replay comparisons.The current small-instance validation records 213 passing tests, while these checks remain bounded rather than an all-input proof.Source: §I.1 · p. 29

I.2 COMMON OUTPUT, TIMING, AND WORK CONTRACTS

  • The work contract distinguishes attempted tests, retained passes, repeated failures, and eligible survivor point-rounds; elapsed time and modeled compute use different scopes.Comparable end-to-end timing includes recorded input/materialization, checkpoint loading where needed, and witness output, but excludes network and synchronization costs.Source: §I.2 · pp. 29–30

I.3 P2/P4 COHORT PROVENANCE AND EXECUTION DEFINITIONS

  • The evaluated cohorts use archived processed inputs; Bank reconstruction matches the processed data, while raw preprocessing identity is unavailable for Adult and Credit.Recipe descriptions do not establish raw-population or semantic-feature identity, and the P2 deletion requests are sampled without group or client quotas.Source: §I.3 · p. 30
  • P2 ran on one Apple M3 Max worker with fixed single-thread numerical libraries, while P4 retained its earlier macOS execution and unrecorded exact CPU model.For P2, the 5,000 fixed-k seed-block bootstrap replicates preserved shared seed indices across datasets and resampled independently at each k.Source: §I.3 · p. 31

I.4 P1: ARCHITECTURE-SPECIFIC HETEROGENEITY

  • The P1 experiment used two locations and 10,000 common seed indices per method/value; its merged-2k setup does not test the analytical three-location result.Empirical PRNG moments and ideal-bit analytical expectations are distinct, so a finite empirical mean below an expectation bound is not a contradiction.Source: §I.4 · p. 31

I.5 P2: UNIQUE-SOURCE TABULAR COHORTS

  • P2 used unique-source Adult, Bank Marketing, and Credit Default cohorts with 103, 42, and 23 dimensions; no source client was pure or at least 95% single-group.Adult/Credit used k = 4–16 and Bank used k = 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, with five requests per setting and 175 trials total. Trials used T = 15, b = 12, L = 6, Ta = γ = 0 and abandonment threshold 0.5; bootstrap uncertainty preserved shared seeds across datasets.Source: §I.5 · p. 32, Table 5 · p. 32
  • Algorithm-time reductions were 5.730%, 0.567%, and 0.492% for Direct/Basic/Runner-up, but E2E total-time ratios were 1.049, 0.996, and 0.995, respectively.The methods won 170, 69, and 70 of 175 trials, respectively, with no ties; both certificates abandoned at round zero in 174 trials and never abandoned in one. Runner-up’s four extra attempted passes were discarded, leaving the same useful S; the reported work counts do not determine elapsed-time ordering.Source: §I.5 · pp. 32–33

I.6 P3: PUBLIC ACS GEOGRAPHIC FEDERATION

The studies evaluate record deletion and federated clustering across fixed ACS cohorts, then examine refinement quality and replay costs. Certification often falls back, while added refinement lowers worst-group cost in the record-deletion study.

I.6 P3: PUBLIC ACS GEOGRAPHIC FEDERATION

  • For fresh, direct, basic, and runner-up, mean algorithm times were 2.4261, 2.2982, 2.5861, and 2.5823 seconds, respectively.These are P3 means; the primitive timers do not isolate a causal explanation of runtime.Source: §I.6 · p. 33
  • Across 95 ACS trials, each certificate abandoned at round zero in 92 trials, never abandoned in three, and had no later fallback.Both certificate variants had zero useful coverage in designs other than design 15; each abandoned every trial in those designs.Source: §I.6 · p. 34

I.6.1 SEVEN PRESCRIBED MECHANISM DIAGNOSTICS

  • Across four abandoned diagnostics, 31,280–67,071 retained indexed labels changed, and both ideal certificates failed on every survivor at round zero.Positive matched-center movement ruled out a mere index permutation in these cases.Source: §I.6.1 · p. 37
  • In two diagnostics, server draws changed selections through altered proposal widths or cumulative intervals; one first-call geometric total-variation distance was approximately 0.641473.These conditional laws describe observed prefixes, not the full adaptive initialization or refined trajectory.Source: §I.6.1 · p. 37
  • In three successful r = 1 seeds, round-zero initializers matched, but trajectories diverged after the first update, leaving 3, 6, and 8 point-rounds unsaved.Full reconstruction is the policy, not a necessity of exact replay.Source: §I.6.1 · pp. 37–38

I.7 P4: QUALITY, RESIDUALS, COLLISIONS, AND SERIALIZED BYTES

  • Across federated methods, final Φ spread did not exceed warm spread in 17/18 dataset/γ groups, while final G spread grew in 1/18.Larger γ alone did not reduce coordinate or packet bytes because binary64 shape and dtype remained unchanged.Source: §I.7 · p. 38

J.1 RECORD DELETION ACROSS REFINEMENT BUDGETS

  • 19.8%, 31.2%, and 29.0%: mean paired T = 0-to-T = 2 decreases in Φ for Adult, Bank, and Credit, respectively.These are record-deletion results averaged across five seeds.Source: §J.1 · p. 39
  • At positive refinement budgets, both certificate variants rejected every attempted certificate and fell back in round zero; basic and runner-up were slower than direct throughout.At T = 2, each dataset attempted certificates only on its first round, and failed assignments were repeated by the full rebuild.Source: §J.1 · p. 40

J.2 WHOLE-CLIENT SUMMARY REPLAY AT INITIALIZATION

For whole-client withdrawal, the paper reuses surviving local summaries and rebuilds the weighted server initialization; later studies test replay with refinement and sequential compact-state updates. Replay is faster in the tested settings, while quality and state-retention boundaries remain important.

J.2 WHOLE-CLIENT SUMMARY REPLAY AT INITIALIZATION

  • With fixed represented data, persistent ordering, keyed reproducible streams, and T = 0, removing departing summaries and rebuilding exact counts and rational anchor weights reproduces fresh training’s indexed C(0).This is an initializer result, not a general unlearning theorem or a claim that complete stored states match.Source: §J.2 · p. 41
  • The compact candidate retains O(Ckd) summary coordinates and O(C) count metadata, without raw arrays or point caches.Model equality and smaller serialized state do not establish privacy or physical erasure; prior states, raw inputs, and witnesses can retain deleted information.Source: §J.2 · p. 41
  • 35.79: pooled fresh/fast resident-request ratio across 45 observations for whole-client withdrawal at T = 0.All 15 fresh/fast case-mean request ratios exceeded ten in this grid; the authors do not claim universal speedup.Source: §J.2 · p. 42

K.1 CANONICAL WHOLE-CLIENT REPLAY WITH POSITIVE REFINEMENT

  • At T = 1 and T = 2, paired fresh/Direct resident-request ratios ranged 2.041–2.681 and 1.538–1.868, respectively; all indexed trajectories and exact statistics matched fresh.Basic and Runner-up rejected every attempted certificate in round zero, so their advantage over fresh came from initialization reuse rather than successful certification.Source: §K.1 · pp. 43–44

K.2 LIMITED CLIENT-IDENTITY COVERAGE AT ZERO REFINEMENT

  • For the limited metadata-selected client grid at T = 0, pooled total fresh/compact request ratio was 35.58; the study did not establish robustness to arbitrary heterogeneous partitions.The grid selected only two client identities per dataset, with one previously tested client and one additional identity.Source: §K.2 · pp. 44–45

K.3 THREE SEQUENTIAL COMPACT-STATE WITHDRAWALS

  • Across three sequential T = 0 withdrawals, all 135 timed compact outputs matched fresh on indexed centers, active identities, surviving summaries, exact counts, and canonical anchor weights.Fresh/compact ratios were 34.99 for matched timing and 22.27 for operational timing; the latter is not durable transaction latency.Source: §K.3 · pp. 45–46, Table 22 · p. 45

K.4 GROUP-RESOLVED QUALITY AND ADVERSE TRANSITIONS

  • Mean paired T = 0-to-T = 2 decreases in Φ were 19.76/31.17/28.99% for record deletion and 18.53/28.76/35.26% for client deletion (Adult/Bank/Credit).Despite decreases in worst-group cost, five adverse fair group-cost transitions occurred; two also raised population-average cost.Source: §K.4 · p. 46, Table 23 · p. 46

K.5 MATCHED-START ORDINARY LLOYD COMPARISON

The matched-start comparison changes only the refinement update rule, then evaluates fair and ordinary Lloyd refinement on fixed record- and client-deletion survivor populations. Fair refinement trades lower worst-group and group-0 costs for higher population-average and group-1 costs in every positive-budget case.

K.5 MATCHED-START ORDINARY LLOYD COMPARISON

  • Figure 7 plots paired fair-minus-Lloyd percentage differences by cost; negative values favor fair, and shared initialization ties at T = 0.The plotted populations are separate record- and whole-client-deletion populations; axes differ by dataset.Source: Figure 7 · p. 48
  • In all 30 positive-budget cases, fair refinement has lower Φ and group-0 cost but higher population-average and group-1 cost than Lloyd.The comparison changes the update rule only; it does not establish simultaneous improvement across these objectives.Source: §K.5 · pp. 46, 48
  • Thirty completed reruns reproduce all 90 saved fair center/statistic prefixes and objective sets exactly.A separately written scorer agreed on all 150 distinct center tuples, with fixtures covering ambiguous and tied distances and binary64 rounding.Source: §K.5 · p. 48
  • The comparison does not establish optimality, cost equalization, downstream fairness, or an application-level quality threshold.It also does not establish a runtime benchmark or a new Lloyd-unlearning claim.Source: §K.5 · pp. 48–49
  • A separate arbitrary-precision rescore matched exact objectives and full labels for 12 T = 2 tuples across both methods and all six dataset/population combinations.This was a bounded AI audit, not a rescore of all 150 tuples or human validation.Source: §K.5 · p. 49

L A SEPARATE CATEGORICAL MULTI-GROUP PROTOTYPE

The separate multi-group prototype extends the replay map and bounded fixed-partition optimization to disjoint categorical groups. Its real-data pilot reports matched replay outputs and request-time ratios for one ACS client deletion, while leaving broader service and optimality claims open.

L A SEPARATE CATEGORICAL MULTI-GROUP PROTOTYPE

  • Whole-client deletion preserves surviving identities, stream keys, and slice summaries, enabling fresh-equivalent initialization before direct replay recomputes assignments each refinement round.Pointwise same-seed trajectory equality is conditional on fixed preprocessing, numerical conventions, and trusted state.Source: L A SEPARATE CATEGORICAL MULTI-GROUP… · p. 49
  • For each fixed partition, a finite concave-dual search yields an absolute primal-minus-dual optimality certificate, but need not find the optimum.Neither this fixed-partition gap nor exact replay certifies a global clustering optimum.Source: L A SEPARATE CATEGORICAL MULTI-GROUP… · p. 49
  • The pilot used 100,000 ACS 2018 rows across ten state clients and removed Missouri, leaving all nine RAC1P groups nonempty.It preserved the original sixteen-feature processing, including RAC1P as a feature, without survey weighting.Source: L A SEPARATE CATEGORICAL MULTI-GROUP… · pp. 49–50
  • Mean nearest-center worst-group cost Φ was 16.374, 9.994, and 9.445 at T = 0, 1, and 2 in the pilot.This was one population, one whole-client request, and five seeds; no utility threshold or global-optimum claim is made.Source: L A SEPARATE CATEGORICAL MULTI-GROUP… · p. 50
  • With resident data and state, fresh-to-direct request-time ratios were 138.70, 1.60, and 1.30 at matched T = 0, 1, and 2 in one ACS population and request.The raw-free compact T = 0 path had a ratio of 139.14; setup, persistence, network, and erasure costs are outside these request ratios.Source: L A SEPARATE CATEGORICAL MULTI-GROUP… · p. 50
  • A separate audit rechecked the frozen files, data identities, encoded coordinates, and saved certificates, but did not independently reassign every real row for every model.The audit does not establish raw Census provenance, hostile-state protection, an exact optimizer, or a positive-round sequential checkpoint service.Source: L A SEPARATE CATEGORICAL MULTI-GROUP… · p. 50

M IMPLEMENTATION AND NUMERICAL CONVENTIONS

The implementation appendix specifies the deterministic training map, numerical conventions, deletion procedure, and replay boundaries needed for reproducibility. It distinguishes this work’s initialization anchors and exactness target from prior fair-clustering, federated-deletion, and assignment-caching approaches.

M IMPLEMENTATION AND NUMERICAL CONVENTIONS

  • The declared training map fixes preprocessing, sampling, refinement, and output conventions so same-seed replay has a fully specified target.The canonical binary map uses fixed-point encoding and exact integer accumulators for represented data.Source: M IMPLEMENTATION AND NUMERICAL… · pp. 50–51
  • Categorical sampling uses rational masses and rejection sampling to select categories with their exact mass fractions under ideal independent fair bits.Zero mass invokes deterministic completion; the proof establishes unbiasedness, whereas a frequency test alone does not.Source: M IMPLEMENTATION AND NUMERICAL… · p. 51
  • Deterministic keyed streams support reproducibility, but finite PRNG execution does not prove independent ideal tapes.The implementation also fixes saturation, ordering, and indexed tie-breaking rules for sampling and assignments.Source: M IMPLEMENTATION AND NUMERICAL… · p. 51
  • The guarded update compares represented candidate costs and accepts the lowest maximum group cost only when it does not exceed the incumbent.Quantization has a rounding qualification, and changing γ alone does not compress the float64 coordinate payload.Source: M IMPLEMENTATION AND NUMERICAL… · p. 52
  • Replay certifies cached assignments only when outward distance bounds separate strictly; inconclusive cases use exact or certified fallback.Full sorting and exact fallback costs are charged, and memory and serialized-state requirements differ.Source: M IMPLEMENTATION AND NUMERICAL… · p. 52
  • Deletion reuses untouched summaries, reruns touched summaries with original keys, and rebuilds the server initializer using retained group denominators.Replay output has cache valid=false and cannot serve as a fresh checkpoint; no free sequential-deletion or rebuilt-cache fast service is claimed.Source: M IMPLEMENTATION AND NUMERICAL… · p. 52

N EXTENDED RELATED WORK

  • The related-work comparison distinguishes initialization anchors from strong coresets, and this exactness target from prior procedures’ guarantees.The paper does not claim a best approximation ratio, broad first-exact-federated result, downstream fairness, or fair client-computation burdens.Source: N EXTENDED RELATED WORK · p. 53
Loading 2610.13717v1…