Summary
The paper examines a significant vulnerability in text-to-image diffusion models regarding the unlearning of unwanted concepts, termed "concept resurgence." It demonstrates that fine-tuning diffusion models on seemingly unrelated and benign data can inadvertently lead to the re-emergence of previously erased concepts. This vulnerability raises serious concerns about the reliability of current unlearning methods, particularly for developers aiming to protect users from undesirable content. The authors conducted experiments using Stable Diffusion v1.4 and the Mass Concept Erasure (MACE) technique, revealing that concept resurgence can occur even under benign conditions. Further, the authors explore and try to identify various factors which may contribute to this issue such as the choice of fine-tuning data and the regularization applied during unlearning.
Strengths
- The paper tackles a timely and practically-relevant problem supported by a fair amount of experiments. Model unlearning regarding AI safety is an area with limited prior research, making this work particularly valuable.
- This work stands as a pioneering study in attempting to identify concept resurgence phenomenon regarding text-to-image diffusion models.
Weaknesses
- The main weakness of this paper is its limited experimental scope. While the paper's key contribution is the concept resurgence phenomenon, it is supported only by limited empirical evidence. This calls for testing the phenomenon in various setups, yet the authors only use a single model, SD v1.4. Given the availability of advanced models such as SDXL, EDM, MDT, and FLUX, it would be helpful to see experiments using other diffusion models, particularly those trained with flow matching objectives instead of score matching losses. Additionally, the authors exclude tasks related to artistic style removal and explicit content removal, citing evaluation challenges. However, it would still be valuable to demonstrate the concept resurgence phenomenon in these tasks, even if a fair evaluation is difficult. The current experimental setup is also limited in terms of dataset diversity. Providing additional qualitative examples beyond Figures 2 and 4 would strengthen the paper.
- To my understanding, this paper only experimented with a single unlearning technique, MACE. The authors need to explore more existing methods such as UCE, FMN, ESD, SDD etc. Even if MACE is a SOTA unlearning method, concept resurgence may not appear with the other baselines. Section 4.2, in particular, would benefit from a broader discussion of baseline methods.
- The authors propose three potential contributors to concept resurgence: mapping concept, regularization, and fine-tuning algorithms. However, the discussion in Section 4 lacks depth. The authors should offer theoretical justifications or at least propose a main hypothesis supported by empirical evidence. For example, in Figure 7, they suggest that “increasing regularization increases concept resurgence in the celebrity erasure task, but has little impact on the object erasure task.” It would be helpful to identify the key factor causing this difference and explore how this factor might be used to prevent concept resurgence. Further, the authors conclude that the difference between full fine-tuning and LoRA fine-tuning does not affect concept resurgence. However, if sufficiently “distant” fine-tuning can prevent concept resurgence, wouldn’t full fine-tuning be more effective than LoRA in doing so?
Questions
- What exactly is meant by “mapping concept”? I read the paper carefully but still find the term’s exact definition unclear. Did the authors use this term in the same way as in the MACE paper?
- Regarding Figure 5, what would happen if 10 or 100 objects were removed, as in the celebrity erasure task?