MissMAC-Bench: Building Solid Benchmark for Missing Modality Issue in Robust Multimodal Affective Computing

Multimodal physiological data powers clinical AI systems from intensive care units to wearable devices, but sensors routinely fail in practice. Two failure modes are common: modality missing, where an entire channel is absent, and within-modality missing, where a contiguous time segment is lost. No existing benchmark evaluates multiple fusion architectures under both failure modes at controlled severity levels across diverse clinical datasets. We present MuteBench, a benchmark covering 9 datasets from 7 clinical domains, 6 fusion architectures, and 2 missing-data modes over 125,000 samples. Through this benchmark, we find that architecture family is the strongest predictor of robustness, outweighing parameter count. Channel-independent models tolerate modality missing well but can be sensitive to within-modality missing, especially on short sequences. Curriculum modality dropout protects reliably only up to the maximum dropout rate used in training. We also find that channel count, sequence length, and modality alignment jointly determine which failure mode poses the greater threat. Finally, a PTB-XL case study suggests that diffusion-based imputation can improve downstream classification under within-modality missing, with the largest gains for models whose expert routing is most sensitive to corrupted inputs, though broader validation across datasets remains an open direction. MuteBench provides practitioners with concrete guidance for both selecting existing architectures and informing the design of future robust multimodal fusion methods.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) can process diverse inputs, e.g., text, images, audio, and video, and generate textual responses. While their capabilities have advanced rapidly, evaluation of such models has not kept pace. Most existing evaluation benchmarks are limited to isolated tasks and reveal little about whether a model integrates information across modalities. We examine current means for evaluating MLLMs and review the existing benchmark taxonomy to identify gaps, including temporal-spatial coherence, physical world understanding, multimodal consistency, and selective attention. Addressing these gaps is essential for measuring real progress in multimodal intelligence and exposing capability boundaries.

Despite the growing popularity of Multimodal Domain Generalization (MMDG) for enhancing model robustness, it remains unclear whether reported performance gains reflect genuine algorithmic progress or are artifacts of inconsistent evaluation protocols. Current research is fragmented, with studies varying significantly across datasets, modality configurations, and experimental settings. Furthermore, existing benchmarks focus predominantly on action recognition, often neglecting critical real-world challenges such as input corruptions, missing modalities, and model trustworthiness. This lack of standardization obscures a reliable assessment of the field's advancement. To address this issue, we introduce MMDG-Bench, the first unified and comprehensive benchmark for MMDG, which standardizes evaluation across six datasets spanning three diverse tasks: action recognition, mechanical fault diagnosis, and sentiment analysis. MMDG-Bench encompasses six modality combinations, nine representative methods, and multiple evaluation settings. Beyond standard accuracy, it systematically assesses corruption robustness, missing-modality generalization, misclassification detection, and out-of-distribution detection. With 7, 402 neural networks trained in total across 95 unique cross-domain tasks, MMDG-Bench yields five key findings: (1) under fair comparisons, recent specialized MMDG methods offer only marginal improvements over ERM baseline; (2) no single method consistently outperforms others across datasets or modality combinations; (3) a substantial gap to upper-bound performance persists, indicating that MMDG remains far from solved; (4) trimodal fusion does not consistently outperform the strongest bimodal configurations; and (5) all evaluated methods exhibit significant degradation under corruption and missing-modality scenarios, with some methods further compromising model trustworthiness.