ModalImmune: Immunity Driven Unlearning via Self Destructive Training
Authors: Rong Fu, WeiZhi Tang, Ziming Wang, Jia Yee Tan, Zijian Zhang, Zhaolu Kang, Muge Qi, Shuning Zhang, +1 more
Organizations: University of Macau · Zhejiang University · Renmin University of China · University of Pennsylvania · Peking University · Tsinghua University
Multimodal systems are vulnerable to partial or complete loss of input channels at deployment, which undermines reliability in real-world settings. This paper presents ModalImmune, a training framework that enforces modality immunity by intentionally and controllably collapsing selected modality information during training so the model learns joint representations that are robust to destructive modality influence. The framework combines a spectrum-adaptive collapse regularizer, an information-gain guided controller for targeted interventions, curvature-aware gradient masking to stabilize destructive updates, and a certified Neumann-truncated hyper-gradient procedure for automatic meta-parameter adaptation. Empirical evaluation on standard multimodal benchmarks demonstrates that ModalImmune improves resilience to modality removal and corruption while retaining convergence stability and reconstruction capacity.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the ModalImmune framework, which treats modality destruction as an active causal intervention . The training strategy alternates between standard reconstruction and Self-Destructive Learning (SDL) built on three key components: Info-Drop Intervention (IDI) , where an EXP3.P bandit controller leverages an information-gain surrogate ℓm to adaptively select the target modality m⋆ ; Spectral Self-Collapse (SSC) , enforcing an irreversible directional loss through a spectrum-adaptive regularizer Lcoll combined with a stable-rank penalty; Curvature-Gated Counter-Gradient (CGC) , which inspects empirical Fisher information to apply a masking multiplier ρ that mitigates destabilizing gradient ascent. Meanwhile, meta-parameters ξ={λ,η,κ} are optimized via Bi-level Hyper-Gradient Descent (BHGD) using a certified Neumann-truncated estimator. This unified protocol ensures the Fusion Hub and Task Output (C) remain robust under counterfactual interventions and adversarial modality collapse.
Figure 2: Training dynamics with explicit phase markers. The horizontal axis shows epochs from 0 to 50. The left vertical axis reports validation Acc2 and the right vertical axis reports MAE. Background shading separates Self-Destructive Learning (SDL) phases from reconstruction-only phases. Shaded bands indicate the 95% confidence interval over three independent seeds. The plot demonstrates that introducing SDL phases does not slow convergence nor induce overfitting on the validation set.
Figure 3: Quantified contribution of principal modules. Bars show absolute drops in validation Acc2 (percentage points) when the named module is ablated. The property-vector pathway produces the largest single decrease, indicating its central role in the model’s predictive power. This visual summary complements the ablation table by converting numeric differences into an immediately interpretable ranking.
Figure 4: BHGD hyperparameter trajectories versus grid-search baselines. Each subplot shows the online evolution of one meta-parameter across training epochs: collapse weight λ , negative feedback scale κ , and stable-rank penalty η . Horizontal dashed lines mark best values found by offline grid search. An inset table compares wall-clock time for hyperparameter selection and demonstrates that BHGD attains comparable or superior meta-parameters while reducing tuning wall time by approximately 38%.
Figure 5: Certified Neumann truncation: error versus compute. The horizontal axis shows truncation depth K from 1 to 10. The left vertical axis reports the relative hyper-gradient error norm ∥∇−∇∥/∥∇∥ expressed in percent. The right vertical axis reports the average additional training time in seconds per hyper-update. A vertical dashed line indicates the online doubling stopping point (here K=6 ), at which point the relative error falls below 2% while compute remains practical. The plot supports the claim that the chosen truncation rule yields an efficient and accurate approximation.
Figure 6: Spectral collapse diagnostics. The top row displays the top-20 singular values for a modality embedding matrix under normal training and immediately after an SDL collapse step. Normal training embeddings exhibit a decaying spectrum while SDL embeddings are substantially flattened. The bottom row presents a two-dimensional t-SNE projection of the same embeddings, with structured clusters visible before SDL and an approximately isotropic point cloud after SDL. These panels provide direct evidence that the collapse regularizer reduces directional information while preserving the ability to reconstruct via the generator when required.
Figure 7: implementation across random seeds. The horizontal axis is epoch and the vertical axis is validation Acc2. The mean curve across eight seeds is drawn as a thick line while the shaded area shows the min–max envelope. Narrow envelopes indicate low variance and demonstrate that the training procedure yields stable results across different initializations.
Figure 8: Corruption robustness comparison. Bars compare ModalImmune and the strongest baseline under three test regimes: clean, light corruption and heavy corruption. The plotted metric is Acc2 on the validation set. ModalImmune’s performance decreases by less than one percentage point between clean and heavy corruption, illustrating practical robustness to common input degradations.
Method
CMU-MOSI
CMU-MOSEI
Acc7
Acc2
F1
MAE ↓
Corr
Acc7
Acc2
F1
MAE ↓
Corr
HyCon [ 33 ]
46.6
85.2
85.1
0.741
0.779
52.8
85.4
85.6
0.554
0.751
UniMSE [ 34 ]
48.7
86.9
86.4
0.691
0.809
54.4
87.5
87.5
0.523
0.773
ConFEDE [ 35 ]
42.3
85.5
85.5
0.742
0.782
54.9
85.8
85.8
0.522
0.780
MGCL [ 36 ]
49.3
86.7
86.7
0.685
0.707
53.9
86.4
86.4
0.535
0.772
HyDiscGAN [ 37 ]
43.2
86.7
86.3
0.749
0.782
54.4
86.3
86.2
0.533
0.761
Table 1: CMU-MOSI [ 30 ] and CMU-MOSEI [ 31 ] full-modality comparison. Metrics: Acc7 (%), Acc2 (%), F1 (%), MAE (lower better), Corr. Best entries are bold . Mean ± std over 3 runs.
Model
WA (%) ↑
UA (%) ↑
TwoStageFT [ 42 ]
74.9
76.1
AdaptiveMixup [ 43 ]
75.4
76.0
EmoAug [ 44 ]
72.7
73.8
MoMKE [ 45 ]
77.9
77.1
APIN [ 46 ]
77.8
78.2
IAM [ 47 ]
74.8
75.6
Table 2: IEMOCAP [ 32 ] full-modality comparison. WA: weighted accuracy; UA: unweighted accuracy. Best entries are bold . Mean ± std over 3 runs.
Available
GCNet [ 50 ]
IMDer [ 51 ]
MoMKE [ 45 ]
LNLN [ 52 ]
EUAR [ 53 ]
CIDer [ 54 ]
RoHyDR [ 55 ]
ModalImmune (ours)
{t}
83.7/83.6/42.3
84.8/84.7/44.8
86.2/86.1/38.1
84.9/84.7/45.1
86.0/86.0/46.1
83.7/83.6/41.3
86.11/84.88/46.2
91.2/91.2/51.2
{v}
56.1/55.7/16.9
61.3/60.8/22.2
54.1/53.7/17.0
52.2/58.9/18.8
64.9/64.9/23.6
57.8/42.3/15.5
63.07/62.31/22.8
69.7/69.7/25.7
{a}
56.1/54.5/16.6
62.0/62.2/22.0
59.3/59.0/18.4
52.2/58.9/18.0
63.0/62.3/23.2
57.8/43.2/15.2
63.89/62.73/23.1
70.2/70.2/26.2
{t,v}
84.3/84.2/43.4
85.5/85.4/45.3
86.5/86.4/37.5
84.3/84.6/44.6
86.2/86.2/45.5
83.8/83.8/42.1
86.54/86.37/47.0
92.2/92.2/52.7
{t,a}
84.3/84.2/43.4
85.4/85.3/45.0
86.5/86.4/38.6
84.9/85.2/45.1
86.1/86.1/44.7
83.8/83.8/41.7
86.42/86.04/46.8
92.7/92.7/53.2
{v,a}
62.0/61.9/17.2
63.6/63.4/23.8
59.6/59.6/20.1
52.2/58.9/18.8
66.1/65.8/24.2
57.8/44.0/15.5
64.59/63.02/24.0
71.7/71.7/27.2
Table 3: Fixed missing-modality results on CMU-MOSI [ 30 ] . Each cell reports Acc2 / F1 / Acc7. Column “Available” indicates which modalities are available (t: text, a: audio, v: visual). Best results are bold . Mean ± std over 3 runs.
Missing rate η
GCNet [ 50 ]
IMDer [ 51 ]
MoMKE [ 45 ]
LNLN [ 52 ]
EUAR [ 53 ]
CIDer [ 54 ]
RoHyDR [ 55 ]
ModalImmune (ours)
0.1
82.4/82.2/41.9
83.3/83.2/43.0
83.6/83.6/35.5
81.1/82.0/42.0
84.1/84.1/43.8
81.1/79.6/39.4
84.96/83.04/43.5
91.2/91.2/49.7
0.2
79.6/79.3/38.9
80.9/80.8/40.7
80.7/80.7/33.7
78.0/79.5/39.5
81.9/81.9/41.5
78.5/75.6/36.7
83.07/81.70/41.2
88.7/88.7/47.7
0.3
76.7/76.5/35.9
78.5/78.4/38.4
77.8/77.7/31.9
74.8/77.0/36.9
79.8/79.7/39.2
76.0/71.6/34.0
81.87/80.07/39.1
86.7/86.7/45.7
0.4
73.6/73.2/33.0
76.0/75.9/36.0
74.7/74.6/29.8
71.6/74.4/34.3
77.4/77.3/36.9
73.4/67.4/31.2
80.76/77.03/36.5
84.2/84.2/42.7
0.5
70.4/69.9/30.1
73.5/73.4/33.6
71.6/71.4/27.8
68.4/71.8/31.7
75.1/74.9/34.7
70.8/63.3/28.5
79.97/76.87/34.9
81.7/81.7/40.0
0.6
67.3/66.7/27.2
71.0/70.9/31.2
68.5/68.3/25.8
65.2/69.2/29.0
72.8/72.6/32.5
68.2/59.1/25.8
78.03/74.83/32.4
79.2/79.2/37.7
Table 4: Varying global missing rate η on CMU-MOSI [ 30 ] . Each cell reports Acc2 / F1 / Acc7. Best results are bold . Mean ± std over 3 runs.
Variant
FIX (Acc2 / F1 / Acc7)
MR (Acc2 / F1 / Acc7)
w/o property embedding pathway
77.7 / 77.5 / 34.2
80.4 / 80.2 / 38.0
w/o reconstruction module
78.9 / 78.7 / 35.0
81.6 / 81.5 / 40.3
w/o mirror involution
79.2 / 79.0 / 35.3
81.8 / 81.7 / 40.5
w/o fusion module
80.3 / 80.2 / 36.5
82.7 / 82.6 / 41.6
w/o property pathway + reconstruction
76.6 / 76.4 / 33.4
79.3 / 79.1 / 37.3
w/o all modules
74.8 / 74.6 / 31.7
77.5 / 77.3 / 34.2
Table 5: Ablation study of ModalImmune on CMU-MOSI [ 30 ] . Each entry reports Acc2 / F1 / Acc7 for FIX and MR regimes. Best results are bold . Mean ± std over 3 runs.
Condition
FIX
MR
With corruption
80.6 / 80.6 / 38.6
81.9 / 81.9 / 40.9
Clean (no corruption)
81.5 / 81.5 / 39.7
82.6 / 82.6 / 41.3
Table 6: Robustness to synthetic corruption on CMU-MOSI [ 30 ] (Acc2 / F1 / Acc7). Best results are bold . Mean ± std over 3 runs.
Hyperparameter
Range
Acc2 (%)
Default
Significance
Collapse weight ( λ )
[0.1, 1.0]
81.3–81.7
0.5
p<0.01
Negative feedback scale ( κ )
[0.1, 1.0]
81.4–81.6
0.5
p<0.01
Stable-rank penalty ( η )
[0.05, 0.2]
81.5–81.6
0.1
p<0.01
SDL probability ( psdl )
[0.1, 0.3]
81.4–81.5
0.2
p<0.01
Fusion heads
[4, 16]
81.4–81.5
8
p<0.01
Property dimension
[64, 256]
81.4–81.6
128
p<0.01
Table 7: Hyperparameter sensitivity analysis of ModalImmune on CMU-MOSI. Each parameter is varied while keeping others at default values. Best results are bold . Mean ± std over 3 runs.
Meta-parameter
Grid optimum
BHGD final
∣Diff∣
Collapse weight λ
0.50
0.48
0.02
Negative-feedback scale κ
0.50
0.52
0.02
Stable-rank penalty η
0.10
0.07
0.03
Table 8: BHGD terminal estimates versus grid-search optima on CMU-MOSI. Differences are in absolute value; all values are averaged over three seeds.
Method
Acc2
F1
Acc7
RoHyDR [ 55 ]
76.3
76.2
36.7
ModalImmune (ours)
83.1
82.9
44.6
Table 9: Zero-shot robustness on CMU-MOSI. Training: {text, audio}; Testing: {text, visual}. Mean ± std over 3 runs.
Metric
ρ
p -value
Stable-rank ↓ vs. Accuracy ↑
0.81
<0.01
Table 10: Correlation between stable-rank reduction and missing-modality accuracy across epochs.
Method
Parameters (M)
Peak Memory (GB)
Latency (ms)
Baseline
24.80
6.9
13.9
ModalImmune
26.02 ( Δ 4.9%)
7.3 ( Δ 5.8%)
14.7 ( Δ 5.8%)
Table 11: Resource comparison on CMU-MOSI. “ Δ ” denotes relative increase over baseline.
Appendix figures & tables1 asset
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Constant
Meaning
Empirical value (mean of 3 runs)
C
Bernstein matrix concentration constant
0.47
σx
sub-Gaussian parameter of embedding z
1.8
β
Hessian spectral norm ∥H∥2
6.1
α
inner learning rate
5×10−3
G
gradient norm bound E∥g0∥2
4.2
V
trace bound tr(Σg0)
190
Appendix
Table 12: Empirical instantiation of ModalImmune theoretical constants on CMU-MOSI.
Missing modality remains a longstanding challenge in multimodal learning. Existing methods typically address this issue through modality recovery or adaptive strategies. However, they overlook models' internal cross-modal dependencies formed during multimodal training, which later impair robustness. We systematically characterize a counterintuitive deployment-time failure mode: models trained on full modalities can underperform unimodal models when one modality is missing at inference time. This pattern appears across diverse architectures, such as fusion models, CLIP-style two-tower models, and vision-language models. We show that such degradation is closely associated with learned cross-modal dependencies in the principal parameter subspaces. Multimodal training induces structured rotations of these subspaces, particularly in cross-modal interaction layers. These rotations are associated with reduced task-aligned margins and larger task-aware representation harm under missing-modality inputs. We propose Geodesic Unlearning (GU), a lightweight parameter-editing method that leverages Grassmannian subspace geometry for structured subspace correction to improve missing-modality robustness. It rotates the principal input subspace toward a unimodal reference along a geodesic path. We prove that this correction minimizes the distance to the reference within a fixed subspace-distance budget. Experiments across architectures and datasets show that GU improves performance under missing-modality inference while preserving full-modality accuracy, outperforming strong missing-modality robustness baselines. These findings support a geometric view of deployment-time missing-modality degradation and suggest localized subspace editing as a practical route for robustness correction.
Songyuan Sui, Zhen Tan, Mohan Zhang +3
Rice University · Stevens Institute of Technology · University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Multimodal learning robust to missing modalities is essential for real-world applications. Existing methods mainly focus on inter-modality missing, where entire modalities are absent, while overlooking intra-modality degradation, where modalities are present but severely corrupted. In practice, these two types of missing often coexist, making existing approaches ineffective. To address this limitation, we propose General Incomplete Multimodal Learning (GIML), a unified framework that simultaneously handles both inter-modality missing and intra-modality degradation through dynamic quality perception. Specifically, GIML models heterogeneous missing patterns as continuous modality information degradation, enabling degradation-aware adaptive fusion. To achieve reliable quality perception, we introduce a Noise-aware Quality Estimator that learns the mapping from corrupted features to noise intensity through controlled noise injection. Furthermore, we propose a Noise-Semantic Decoupled module that separates semantic information from noise interference. This improves robustness and generalization to unseen corruption patterns. Extensive experiments across datasets with diverse modality types demonstrate the effectiveness and generality of GIML. Code is available at: https://github.com/Yu-Five/GIML.
Xiangyu Meng, Shicai Wei
University of Electronic Science and Technology of China
This paper addresses the missing-modality challenge in multi-modal learning by introducing Unsupervised Learning for Missing Modalities in Multi-Modal Learning (UL4M4), a flexible framework that imputes missing feature embeddings in a task-independent manner before supervised prediction. We propose modality-specific normalization and a novel partial-modality distance metric to enable fair clustering of incomplete observations, capturing cross-modal structures while preserving scale-invariance across varying dimensionalities and modality counts. Cluster centers from this unsupervised stage guide an iterative greedy imputation process for any missing modalities during training or inference, supporting arbitrary numbers of modalities and arbitrary missing patterns per sample. The imputation module is lightweight, uses frozen encoders, and decouples from the downstream task, allowing easy integration with any fusion/prediction architecture. Extensive experiments under diverse and highly incomplete regimes demonstrate UL4M4's robustness, achieving, to the best of our knowledge, the first consistent F1-Micro scores above 0.7 on challenging missing configurations even when more than 50% of modality slots are missing. Results are also stable across cluster sizes and significantly outperform state-of-the-art baselines. Code is available here: https://github.com/h-ismkhan/Multimodal-Learning-with-Missing-Modalities-via-Unsupervised-Learning.