atlas

Research map / Learning theory and algorithms / Clustering

Incomplete Multi-view Clustering via Hierarchical Semantic Alignment and Cooperative Completion

NeurIPS 2025 · Learning theory and algorithms › Clustering · approach: Incomplete multi-view clustering · 0 citations (OpenAlex)

Read the paperCheck your idea against 108,967 papers

AI-extracted summary. Written by AI from the paper's full text. Numbers and claims can be wrong or missing context, so check the paper before you cite or build on it.

Proposes HSACC, a deep incomplete multi-view clustering framework that aligns views via mutual information and MMD-based adaptive weighting in a dual-level latent space, and jointly learns cross-view completion with clustering.

Problem

Incomplete multi-view clustering where some views are entirely missing for some samples; existing deep methods use static fusion or two-stage completion-then-clustering pipelines that propagate errors.

Approach

Two semantic levels: low-level mutual-information alignment across views, and high-level adaptive view weights from MMD-based distributional affinity between each view and an initial fused representation, followed by weighted fusion; missing views are implicitly recovered by cross-view MLP inference and optimized jointly with reconstruction and clustering.

Key results

Measured effects reported in the paper

What was changedWhereMeasuredEffect
Use HSACC instead of the strongest reported baselineIncomplete multi-view clustering · LandUse_21 missing rate 0.5ACC: 27.34 -> 28.11Helped
Use HSACC instead of the strongest reported baselineIncomplete multi-view clustering · Noisy MNIST missing rate 0.5ACC: 92.34 -> 92.55Helped
Use HSACC instead of the strongest reported baselineIncomplete multi-view clustering · Caltech101-20 missing rate 0.5ACC: 71.51 -> 76.81Helped
Use HSACC instead of the strongest reported baselineIncomplete multi-view clustering · Hdigit missing rate 0.5ACC: 94.40 -> 95.57Helped
Use HSACC instead of the strongest reported baselineIncomplete multi-view clustering · 100leaves missing rate 0.5ACC: 51.39 -> 52.17Helped
Add cross-view consistency loss L_MMI (ablation)HSACC · Caltech101-20ACC: 42.07 -> 68.69Helped
Add distribution alignment loss L_MMD (ablation)HSACC · Caltech101-20ACC: 68.69 -> 71.29Helped
Add inference consistency loss L_INF (ablation)HSACC · Caltech101-20ACC: 71.29 -> 76.81Helped
Use all four loss components rather than partial loss combinations (ablation)HSACC · Caltech101-20ACC: 72.31 -> 76.81Helped
Vary the loss weights lambda_1, lambda_2, lambda_3, and lambda_4 (ablation)HSACC · Caltech101-20 missing rate 0.5clustering performanceNo clear effect
Increase the number of views from 2 to 5 (ablation)HSACC on Mfeat · MfeatACC: 74.96 -> 88.64Helped

Surprising findings

Limitations

Experimental setup

Datasets: LandUse_21 Noisy MNIST Caltech101-20 Hdigit 100leaves Mfeat

Benchmarks: LandUse_21 Noisy MNIST Caltech101-20 Hdigit 100leaves Mfeat

Metrics: ACC NMI ARI

Baselines: RPCIC MRL_CAL ICMVC MCAC PROLMP DCP DSIMVC SURE COMP

Builds on: contrastive learning maximum mean discrepancy domain adaptation

Closest papers by meaning

Writing a paper in this area? scime draft is a free LaTeX editor with AI included, real-time co-authors and a check of your references and venue rules before you submit. It also imports OpenAI Prism projects.

Open scime draft

Get the next scime Dispatch and a monthly field update

Free. We send a confirmation link first; every email has a one-click unsubscribe. Privacy