Share your thoughts, 1 month free Claude Pro on usSee more
WorkDL logo mark

Rethinking Incompleteness: Formalizing Protocol Divergence and Train-Once Learning for Robust IMVC

About

Standard IMVC evaluation retrains separate models for different missing-data configurations. We show that this paradigm obscures a fundamental vulnerability: missing rate alone is insufficient to characterize data incompleteness. Specifically, we show that protocols with identical nominal missing rates can differ by up to $50\times$ in their proportion of fully observed samples, inducing drastically different learning regimes. We formalize this phenomenon as incompleteness divergence, providing measures that capture structural disparities across missing-data protocols. We further prove that for a broad class of reconstruction-based objectives, learning becomes structurally ill-posed when the proportion of complete samples falls below a critical threshold, leading to near-random performance. To bypass this theoretical bound, we propose CRAFT (Complete-data Robust Attention-masked Fusion Transformer). CRAFT shifts the burden of robustness from the loss function to the architecture via two key properties: (i) per-sample independence, which removes reliance on complete-sample co-occurrence, and (ii) mask-aware variable-length fusion, which aggregates only observed views through attention masking. This design allows a single model, trained once on complete data, to generalize to diverse missing patterns at inference time without retraining. Extensive experiments on seven benchmarks show that CRAFT matches or outperforms per-configuration baselines while reducing training overhead by $8.8\times$, demonstrating that robustness to missing data can be achieved as an inherent architectural property. Code (CRAFT) and our imvc-audit toolkit are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/CRAFT-BF80/ and https://anonymous.4open.science/r/imvc-audit-8263/.

Haolu Liu, Xiyue Wang, Xuanting Xie, Liangjian Wen, Zhao Kang• 2026

Related benchmarks

TaskDatasetResultRank
ClusteringMulti-Fashion
Accuracy93.21
119
ClusteringCUB V=2, K=10 (test)
Accuracy (ACC)82.35
100
ClusteringHandWritten V=6, K=10
Clustering Accuracy97.6
55
ClusteringCUB K=10 v2
Clustering Accuracy82.09
54
ClusteringMultiFashion V=3, K=10
Clustering Accuracy93.21
54
Multi-view ClusteringYTF-31
Accuracy (ACC)27.64
32
ClusteringHandWritten V=6, K=10 (Protocol 2)
ACC97.61
20
ClusteringHandWritten V=6, K=10 (Protocol 1)
Accuracy97.6
16
ClusteringHandWritten Protocol 3 V=6, K=10
Accuracy97.49
16
ClusteringHandWritten V=6, K=10 (Protocol 4)
ACC97.53
16
Showing 10 of 18 rows

Other info

Follow for update