aiqbench analysis
This research benchmarks machine unlearning techniques against exact retraining oracles to determine if financial models truly forget expired data licenses. The study finds that while some architectures like TSMixer can significantly reduce the influence of specific periods, such as the 2020 crisis, without sacrificing predictive skill, others fail to meet the strict definition of deletion. These findings highlight critical gaps in current unlearning methods when applied to high-stakes domains like quantitative finance.
Can You Delete a Year of Market Data? Machine Unlearning Against Exact Retraining Oracles
arXiv:2609.26242v1 Announce Type: new 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.
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.
Machine Learning (cs.LG); Statistical Finance (q-fin.ST)
arXiv:2609.26242 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2609.26242v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.26242 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 361 words
Related coverage

OpenRouter: from Seed to Stripe — with OpenRouter’s Alex Atallah & AMP’s Anjney Midha
Latent Space · Sep 25, 2026
Synthesis Superintelligence: from Semiconductors to Superconductors — Periodic Labs’ Liam Fedus and Ekin Dogus Cubuk
Latent Space · Oct 8, 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · Jul 31, 2026

Microsoft’s AI chief says superintelligence is near, but won’t take your job
The Verge · Jun 8, 2026