The topic is timely, and the results would be of interest to a wide audience. The reviewers found the paper well written and were also satisfied with the authors response. However, please do take the time to address their comments and revise what is necessary in the final version.

Machine unlearning is an emerging field that selectively removes specific data samples from a trained model. This capability is crucial for addressing privacy concerns, complying with data protection regulations, and correcting errors or biases introduced by certain data. Unlike traditional machine learning, where models are typically static once trained, machine unlearning facilitates dynamic updates that enable the model to ``forget'' information without requiring complete retraining from scratch. There are various machine unlearning methods, some of which are more time-efficient when data removal requests are fewer. To decrease the execution time of such machine unlearning methods, we aim to reduce the size of data removal requests based on the fundamental assumption that the removal of certain data would not result in a distinguishable retrained model. We first propose the concept of unnecessary unlearning, which indicates that the model would not alter noticeably after removing some data points. Subsequently, we review existing solutions that can be used to solve our problem. We highlight their limitations in adaptability to different unlearning scenarios and their reliance on manually selected parameters. We consequently put forward FUNU, a method to identify data points that lead to unnecessary unlearning. FUNU circumvents the limitations of existing solutions. The idea is to discover data points within the removal requests that have similar neighbors in the remaining dataset. We utilize a reference model to set parameters for finding neighbors, inspired from the area of model memorization. We provide a theoretical analysis of the privacy guarantee offered by FUNU and conduct extensive experiments to validate its efficacy.

Diffusion models have emerged as a powerful framework for generative modeling. At the heart of the methodology is score matching: learning gradients of families of log-densities for noisy versions of the data distribution at different scales. When the loss function adopted in score matching is evaluated using empirical data, rather than the population loss, the minimizer corresponds to the score of a time-dependent Gaussian mixture. However, use of this analytically tractable minimizer leads to data memorization: in both unconditioned and conditioned settings, the generative model returns the training samples. This paper contains an analysis of the dynamical mechanism underlying memorization. The analysis highlights the need for regularization to avoid reproducing the analytically tractable minimizer; and, in so doing, lays the foundations for a principled understanding of how to regularize. Numerical experiments investigate the properties of: (i) Tikhonov regularization; (ii) regularization designed to promote asymptotic consistency; and (iii) regularizations induced by under-parameterization of a neural network or by early stopping when training a neural network. These experiments are evaluated in the context of memorization, and directions for future development of regularization are highlighted.

Weaknesses: One of my concerns is the rigorousness of the paper. A key lemma, namely Lemma 12 in the supplementary material is only given with a proof sketch. Moreover, in the proof sketch, how the authors handle the general M-decent activation functions is discussed very ambiguously. This makes the results for ReLU activation function particularly questionable. The significance and novelty of this paper compared with the existing results are also not fully demonstrated. It is claimed in this paper that a tight analysis is given on the convergence of NTK to its expectations.

This paper studies optimization in the NTK regime, further improving the best prior width bounds for random data (I believe Oymak-Soltanolkotabi were the prior best). The reviewers and I were all favorable, and I look forward to seeing this paper appear, and support the authors in further investigations. Relatedly, this point was not sufficiently handled in the rebuttal, despite the rebuttal using less than half a page. Please consider such things in the future. One is by Roman Vershynin, and I believe Sebastien Bubeck and colleagues also had a paper on the "Baum" problem.

Overparameterized Deep Neural Networks that generalize well have been key to the dramatic success of Deep Learning in recent years. The reasons for their remarkable ability to generalize are not well understood yet. It has also been known that deep networks possess the ability to memorize training data, as evidenced by perfect or high training accuracies on models trained with corrupted data that have class labels shuffled to varying degrees. Concomitantly, such models are known to generalize poorly, i.e. they suffer from poor test accuracies, due to which it is thought that the act of memorizing substantially degrades the ability to generalize. It has, however, been unclear why the poor generalization that accompanies such memorization, comes about. One possibility is that in the process of training with corrupted data, the layers of the network irretrievably reorganize their representations in a manner that makes generalization difficult. The other possibility is that the network retains significant ability to generalize, but the trained network somehow chooses to readout in a manner that is detrimental to generalization. Here, we provide evidence for the latter possibility by demonstrating, empirically, that such models possess information in their representations for substantially improved generalization, even in the face of memorization. Furthermore, such generalization abilities can be easily decoded from the internals of the trained model, and we build a technique to do so from the outputs of specific layers of the network. We demonstrate results on multiple models trained with a number of standard datasets.

The boosting part is not clear to me? What is the underlying game? 3, Notion of error: This work considers multiplicative error model to define memorization (for eg in Lemma 1).

Prior case retrieval (PCR) is crucial for legal practitioners to find relevant precedent cases given the facts of a query case. Existing approaches often overlook the underlying semantic intent in determining relevance with respect to the query case. In this work, we propose LeCoPCR, a novel approach that explicitly generate intents in the form of legal concepts from a given query case facts and then augments the query with these concepts to enhance models understanding of semantic intent that dictates relavance. To overcome the unavailability of annotated legal concepts, we employ a weak supervision approach to extract key legal concepts from the reasoning section using Determinantal Point Process (DPP) to balance quality and diversity. Experimental results on the ECtHR-PCR dataset demonstrate the effectiveness of leveraging legal concepts and DPP-based key concept extraction.

Self-supervised learning (SSL) algorithms can produce useful image representations by learning to associate different parts of natural images with one another. However, when taken to the extreme, SSL models can unintendedly memorize specific parts in individual training samples rather than learning semantically meaningful associations. In this work, we perform a systematic study of the unintended memorization of image-specific information in SSL models -- which we refer to as déjà vu memorization. Concretely, we show that given the trained model and a crop of a training image containing only the background (e.g., water, sky, grass), it is possible to infer the foreground object with high accuracy or even visually reconstruct it. Furthermore, we show that déjà vu memorization is common to different SSL algorithms, is exacerbated by certain design choices, and cannot be detected by conventional techniques for evaluating representation quality. Our study of déjà vu memorization reveals previously unknown privacy risks in SSL models, as well as suggests potential practical mitigation strategies.

Recent advances in deep generative models have led to impressive results in a variety of application domains. Motivated by the possibility that deep learning models might memorize part of the input data, there have been increased efforts to understand how memorization arises. In this work, we extend a recently proposed measure of memorization for supervised learning (Feldman, 2019) to the unsupervised density estimation problem and adapt it to be more computationally efficient. Next, we present a study that demonstrates how memorization can occur in probabilistic deep generative models such as variational autoencoders. This reveals that the form of memorization to which these models are susceptible differs fundamentally from mode collapse and overfitting.