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/.
Related benchmarks
| Task | Dataset | Result | Rank | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clustering | Multi-Fashion | Accuracy93.21 | 119 | |
| Clustering | CUB V=2, K=10 (test) | Accuracy (ACC)82.35 | 100 | |
| Clustering | HandWritten V=6, K=10 | Clustering Accuracy97.6 | 55 | |
| Clustering | CUB K=10 v2 | Clustering Accuracy82.09 | 54 | |
| Clustering | MultiFashion V=3, K=10 | Clustering Accuracy93.21 | 54 | |
| Multi-view Clustering | YTF-31 | Accuracy (ACC)27.64 | 32 | |
| Clustering | HandWritten V=6, K=10 (Protocol 2) | ACC97.61 | 20 | |
| Clustering | HandWritten V=6, K=10 (Protocol 1) | Accuracy97.6 | 16 | |
| Clustering | HandWritten Protocol 3 V=6, K=10 | Accuracy97.49 | 16 | |
| Clustering | HandWritten V=6, K=10 (Protocol 4) | ACC97.53 | 16 |