Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) commonly assume that node features are fully observed, despite missing features being pervasive in real-world applications. By leveraging the dependence between node features and graph structure, existing graph-specific methods handle missingness by propagating observed feature values along graph edges. However, these methods have mainly been evaluated in overly optimistic settings, where feature entries are removed independently and uniformly across the graph. This overlooks realistic scenarios in which missingness propagates among connected nodes, as can occur during localized sensing failures in sensor networks. We formalize this complementary notion as graph-structured mask dependence, where the joint distribution of missingness indicators is shaped by the graph, and introduce a controlled mechanism that instantiates this setting. We study propagation-based methods theoretically and empirically in this setting, showing that their effectiveness changes substantially compared with the uniformly random regime. Motivated by this limitation, we propose PEMix, designed to remain effective under challenging graph-structured missingness. Rather than propagating observed values, PEMix uses global structural representations to condition a probabilistic model of incomplete node features before message passing. Experiments under controlled graph-structured missingness and naturally occurring missingness show that PEMix remains robust across complex missingness regimes, with particularly strong performance as missingness becomes severe.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Conceptual comparison of missingness mechanisms. Left (U-MCAR): Feature entries are dropped independently and uniformly across the graph. Middle (S-MCAR): Entire feature vectors are missing for randomly sampled nodes, independent of connectivity. Right (Recursive Transmission, RT): Missingness originates at a shared seed node and expands recursively along graph edges, forming spatially correlated missing regions that challenge propagation-based recovery.
Figure 2: TADPOLE macro-F1 under RT, U-MCAR, and S-MCAR for FP, PCFI, and FISF. Curves show the mean and shaded bands indicate one standard deviation over five seeds. Complete macro-F1 and AUROC results are reported in Appendix C .
RT
U-MCAR
Model
TADPOLE
GraphMSO
PEMS-BAY
Engrad
TADPOLE
GraphMSO
PEMS-BAY
Engrad
Macro-F1 ↑
MAE ↓
MAE ↓
MAE ↓
Macro-F1 ↑
MAE ↓
MAE ↓
MAE ↓
GNN-Zero
0.7388
1.369627
4.294239
7.345723
0.7565
1.368397
4.059947
5.796827
GNN-Median
0.7015
1.369711
4.340867
7.317703
0.7398
1.368436
4.038923
5.859984
GNN-MI
0.7130
1.369657
4.251831
7.322302
0.7421
1.368595
4.079495
5.816402
FP
0.7254
1.371720
4.203665
6.515184
0.7473
1.370337
4.035542
5.504311
Table 1: Performance under controlled RT and U-MCAR, reported as trapezoidal AUC over μ . Blue indicates the best model in each column, orange the second one, and green the third one. Full tables in Appendix D .
Model
AQI
PV-US
METR-LA
GNN-Zero
20.1895±0.2203
12.4871±0.0151
6.5199±0.0465
GNN-Median
19.7317±0.2595
12.3410±0.0289
6.6117±0.0760
GNN-MI
19.9730±0.1712
12.4844±0.0337
6.5197±0.0576
FP
18.9450±0.0409
12.5251±0.0290
6.5945±0.0487
PCFI
19.5384±0.0707
12.9281±0.0698
6.6484±0.0957
FISF
19.0586±0.0778
12.5746±0.0203
6.5991±0.0721
Table 2: Performance with naturally occurring missingness (test MAE, mean ± std over five seeds; lower is better). Blue, orange, and green mark the three best models within each dataset.
Dataset
Task
Metric
RDL
RDL-MIM
RDL-PEMix
Node regression
rel-trial
study-adverse
MAE ↓
44.470±0.210
43.115±0.155
42.840±0.680
rel-trial
site-success
MAE ↓
0.400±0.020
0.375±0.017
0.391±0.008
rel-f1
driver-position
MAE ↓
4.022±0.120
4.0271±0.0389
4.208±0.090
Node classification
rel-trial
study-outcome
AUC ↑
0.686±0.010
0.6794±0.0051
0.706±0.010
Table 3: RelBench results with naturally occurring missingness (mean ± std over three seeds; ten epochs). RDL-PEMix denotes the relational adaptation of PEMix, while RDL-MIM is the missing-indicator adaptation of RDL. Bold marks the best mean within each task.
PE
Model
TADPOLE
PV-US
usage
Macro-F1 AUC ↑
MAE ↓
Mechanism
PEMix
0.8243
12.0225±0.0392
FP + PE
0.7336
12.4642±0.0221
PCFI + PE
0.7474
12.8643±0.0454
FISF + PE
0.7573
12.5981±0.0443
Downstream
GCNmf + PE
0.7211
12.1421±0.0145
Table 4: Effect of PE on TADPOLE and PV-US. "Mechanism" denotes methods in which PE are used while handling missing features, whereas "Downstream" denotes variants where PE are concatenated only after missing-feature handling. We report macro-F1 AUC across missingness rates for TADPOLE (higher is better) and test MAE under natural missingness for PV-US (lower is better). PV-US results are means ± std over five seeds.
Appendix figures & tables21 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Regime
Dataset
Domain
Source
Missing (%)
Controlled
TADPOLE
clinical
Zhu et al. (2019)
–
GraphMSO
graph forecasting
Marisca et al. (2024)
–
PEMS-BAY
traffic forecasting
Marisca et al. (2024)
–
Engrad
forecasting
Marisca et al. (2024)
–
Native
AQI
air-quality forecasting
Marisca et al. (2024)
25.67
PV-US
photovoltaic forecasting
Marisca et al. (2024)
54.02
Appendix
Table 5: Datasets used in the controlled and native-missingness experiments. Controlled datasets are originally complete and missingness is injected artificially. Native datasets contain missing values in the original data. For native datasets, we report the percentage of missing entries in the original data.
Dataset
All timestamps
Partial timestamps
Permutation null ( 95% )
AQI
1.15
1.16
[0.902,1.118]
PV-US
1.03
1.21
[0.999,1.001]
METR-LA
1.04
4.03
[0.997,1.003]
Appendix
Table 6: Co-missingness ratio HCmiss on datasets with naturally occurring missingness. Values above 1 indicate that neighboring nodes are missing together more often than under spatially independent missingness. The permutation null is the central 95% range over 999 node permutations, computed over all timestamps.
Macro-F1
AUROC
μ (%)
RT
U-MCAR
S-MCAR
RT
U-MCAR
S-MCAR
0
0.806±0.065
0.806±0.065
0.806±0.065
0.929±0.022
0.929±0.022
0.929±0.022
10
0.805±0.022
0.836±0.038
0.842±0.028
0.932±0.013
0.939±0.016
0.939±0.019
20
0.813±0.035
0.808±0.044
0.797±0.038
0.941±0.010
0.934±0.021
0.932±0.014
30
0.797±0.034
0.798±0.037
0.806±0.065
0.935±0.015
0.928±0.016
0.924±0.031
40
0.802±0.054
0.784±0.026
0.726±0.086
0.926±0.019
0.924±0.013
0.897±0.022
Appendix
Table 7: Complete FP results on TADPOLE (five seeds). Higher macro-F1 and AUROC are better.
Macro-F1
AUROC
μ (%)
RT
U-MCAR
S-MCAR
RT
U-MCAR
S-MCAR
0
0.796±0.054
0.796±0.054
0.796±0.054
0.927±0.016
0.927±0.016
0.927±0.016
10
0.795±0.020
0.810±0.046
0.818±0.038
0.928±0.008
0.936±0.023
0.938±0.015
20
0.825±0.032
0.811±0.038
0.833±0.021
0.940±0.018
0.938±0.020
0.940±0.013
30
0.810±0.019
0.813±0.043
0.797±0.036
0.938±0.017
0.934±0.021
0.928±0.022
40
0.805±0.047
0.804±0.028
0.822±0.047
0.929±0.016
0.933±0.011
0.929±0.016
Appendix
Table 8: Complete PCFI results on TADPOLE (five seeds). Higher macro-F1 and AUROC are better.
Macro-F1
AUROC
μ (%)
RT
U-MCAR
S-MCAR
RT
U-MCAR
S-MCAR
0
0.806±0.040
0.806±0.040
0.806±0.040
0.930±0.016
0.930±0.016
0.930±0.016
10
0.802±0.013
0.825±0.058
0.833±0.021
0.932±0.015
0.939±0.019
0.940±0.014
20
0.809±0.041
0.811±0.036
0.805±0.042
0.940±0.009
0.932±0.017
0.934±0.012
30
0.784±0.055
0.795±0.045
0.812±0.069
0.930±0.018
0.930±0.016
0.924±0.028
40
0.808±0.049
0.790±0.045
0.828±0.032
0.932±0.013
0.933±0.014
0.928±0.010
Appendix
Table 9: Complete FISF results on TADPOLE (five seeds). Higher macro-F1 and AUROC are better.
Mechanism
Method
Hidden
Dropout
LR
Weight decay
Max epochs
Patience
RT
GNN-Zero
128
0.5
0.01
0
500
50
RT
GNN-Median
128
0.5
0.01
0
500
50
RT
GNN-MI
128
0.5
0.01
0
500
50
RT
GNN-MIM
128
0.5
0.01
0
500
50
RT
FP
64
0.5
0.01
0
1000
40
RT
PCFI
64
0.5
0.01
0
1000
40
Appendix
Table 26: Hyperparameter configurations selected for TADPOLE. Hyperparameters are selected separately for RT and U-MCAR using validation performance, and the selected configuration is then kept fixed across all missingness rates within each mechanism.
Mechanism
Method
Hidden
Dropout
LR
Weight decay
Max epochs
Patience
RT
GNN-Zero
128
0.5
0.001
0
500
50
RT
GNN-Median
128
0.3
0.001
0
500
50
RT
GNN-MI
128
0.5
0.001
0
500
50
RT
GNN-MIM
128
0.3
0.001
0
500
50
RT
FP
64
0.3
0.001
0
1000
40
RT
PCFI
64
0.5
0.001
0
1000
40
Appendix
Table 27: Hyperparameter configurations selected for EngRAD. Hyperparameters are selected separately for RT and U-MCAR using validation performance, and the selected configuration is then kept fixed across all missingness rates within each mechanism.
Mechanism
Method
Hidden
Dropout
LR
Weight decay
Max epochs
Patience
RT
GNN-Zero
128
0.5
0.003
0
500
50
RT
GNN-Median
128
0.5
0.01
0
500
50
RT
GNN-MI
128
0.5
0.003
0
500
50
RT
GNN-MIM
128
0.1
0.003
0
500
50
RT
FP
64
0.5
0.01
0
1000
40
RT
PCFI
64
0.5
0.01
0
1000
40
Appendix
Table 28: Hyperparameter configurations selected for GraphMSO. Hyperparameters are selected separately for RT and U-MCAR using validation performance, and the selected configuration is then kept fixed across all missingness rates within each mechanism.
Mechanism
Method
Hidden
Dropout
LR
Weight decay
Max epochs
Patience
RT
GNN-Zero
128
0
0.001
0
500
50
RT
GNN-Median
128
0
0.003
0
500
50
RT
GNN-MI
128
0.3
0.001
0
500
50
RT
GNN-MIM
128
0
0.001
0
500
50
RT
FP
64
0.3
0.003
0
1000
40
RT
PCFI
64
0.1
0.003
0
1000
40
Appendix
Table 29: Hyperparameter configurations selected for PEMS-BAY. Hyperparameters are selected separately for RT and U-MCAR using validation performance, and the selected configuration is then kept fixed across all missingness rates within each mechanism.
Method
Hidden
Dropout
LR
Weight decay
Max epochs
Patience
GNN-Zero
128
0.1
0.01
0
500
50
GNN-Median
128
0.3
0.01
0
500
50
GNN-MI
128
0.5
0.01
0
500
50
GNN-MIM
128
0.5
0.01
0
500
50
FP
64
0.3
0.001
0
1000
40
PCFI
64
0.5
0.003
0
1000
40
Appendix
Table 30: Hyperparameter configurations selected for AQI under natural missingness. Configurations are selected using validation MAE; no additional missingness is injected. GMM settings are reported separately.
Method
Hidden
Dropout
LR
Weight decay
Max epochs
Patience
GNN-Zero
128
0.5
0.003
0
500
50
GNN-Median
128
0
0.003
0
500
50
GNN-MI
128
0.3
0.003
0
500
50
GNN-MIM
128
0.5
0.001
0
500
50
FP
64
0.3
0.003
0
1000
40
PCFI
64
0.5
0.003
0
1000
40
Appendix
Table 31: Hyperparameter configurations selected for PV-US under natural missingness. Configurations are selected using validation MAE; no additional missingness is injected. GMM settings are reported separately.
Method
Hidden
Dropout
LR
Weight decay
Max epochs
Patience
GNN-Zero
128
0
0.001
0
500
50
GNN-Median
128
0.1
0.001
0
500
50
GNN-MI
128
0
0.001
0
500
50
GNN-MIM
128
0.3
0.003
0
500
50
FP
64
0
0.003
0
1000
40
PCFI
64
0
0.003
0
1000
40
Appendix
Table 32: Hyperparameter configurations selected for METR-LA under natural missingness. Configurations are selected using validation MAE; no additional missingness is injected. GMM settings are reported separately.
Mechanism
Method
K
q
Likelihood
RT
GCNmf
5
0
legacy
RT
PEMix
8
16
gaussian
U-MCAR
GCNmf
5
0
legacy
U-MCAR
PEMix
5
8
gaussian
Appendix
Table 33: GMM settings selected for EngRAD. K is the number of mixture components and q is the PE dimension; GCNmf does not use PE ( q=0 ).
Mechanism
Method
K
q
Likelihood
RT
GCNmf
5
0
legacy
RT
PEMix
3
16
gaussian
U-MCAR
GCNmf
5
0
gaussian
U-MCAR
PEMix
2
8
gaussian
Appendix
Table 34: GMM settings selected for GraphMSO. K is the number of mixture components and q is the PE dimension; GCNmf does not use PE ( q=0 ).
Mechanism
Method
K
q
Likelihood
RT
GCNmf
5
0
legacy
RT
PEMix
5
16
gaussian
U-MCAR
GCNmf
5
0
legacy
U-MCAR
PEMix
5
8
gaussian
Appendix
Table 35: GMM settings selected for PEMS-BAY. K is the number of mixture components and q is the PE dimension; GCNmf does not use PE ( q=0 ).
Method
K
q
Likelihood
GCNmf
5
0
legacy
PEMix
5
8
gaussian
Appendix
Table 36: GMM settings selected for AQI. K is the number of mixture components and q is the PE dimension; GCNmf does not use PE ( q=0 ).
Method
K
q
Likelihood
GCNmf
5
0
gaussian
PEMix
3
4
gaussian
Appendix
Table 37: GMM settings selected for PV-US. K is the number of mixture components and q is the PE dimension; GCNmf does not use PE ( q=0 ).
Method
K
q
Likelihood
GCNmf
5
0
gaussian
PEMix
5
16
gaussian
Appendix
Table 38: GMM settings selected for METR-LA. K is the number of mixture components and q is the PE dimension; GCNmf does not use PE ( q=0 ).
Method
Mask-dependent one-off
Per epoch
Extra memory
GNN-Zero / Mean
O(nd)
CB(d)
–
GNN-Median
O(nd)†
CB(d)
–
GNN-MIM
O(nd)
CB(d)+O(ndh)
O(nd)
FP
O(TFPdm)
CB(d)
O(nd)
PCFI
O(TPCdm+nd2)‡
CB(d)
O(dm+d2)‡
FISF
O((T1+ρT2)dm)‡
CB(d)
O(dm)‡
Appendix
Table 39: Computational cost per input graph. Mask-dependent costs are recomputed for every missingness pattern. † : O(ndlogn) with sorting. ‡ : implementation-dependent (see text).
Figure 3: Matched ablation between PEMix and the same probabilistic recovery model without PE conditioning, obtained by setting the positional encodings to zero. The models share masks, splits, optimization settings, and the probabilistic first layer; at μ=0 they coincide exactly. Mean ± standard deviation over five seeds.
Missing rate
Joint GMM
Frozen GMM
20%
6.1751±0.0635
6.287±0.086
50%
7.1536±0.0951
7.364±0.113
80%
8.3722±0.0844
8.523±0.080
Appendix
Table 40: Effect of jointly optimising the GMM on EngRAD under RT . Values are mean ± standard deviation over five seeds. Lower is better.
Missing data is ubiquitous in real-world datasets. Traditional methods either discard incomplete samples or apply imputation techniques that ignore potentially informative missingness patterns, implicitly assuming that missingness occurs randomly. However, missingness patterns might provide additional information. We propose pattern-aware graph neural networks that explicitly encode which features are missing alongside observed values. We used four encoding strategies -- learned embeddings, frozen random embeddings, statistical features, and hierarchical representations -- across seven UCI datasets with naturally occurring missingness. Our Pattern-aware methods achieve substantial improvements over baselines, with an average improvement of 17% in balanced accuracy and 22% in F1-macro across all datasets. The benefits vary significantly by dataset: annealing shows dramatic improvement (+80% balanced accuracy), while hepatitis and soybean show minimal gains (+4--5%). Notably, even simple random pattern embeddings perform comparably to learned embeddings (0.650 vs 0.663 balanced accuracy), suggesting that distinguishing between patterns may be more important than task-specific optimization. Our ablation study reveals that attention mechanisms, while helpful, are not critical when pattern information is available -- simple mean aggregation with pattern awareness achieves 0.640 balanced accuracy compared to 0.645 for attention-based variants.
Clustering on graphs where both node attributes and structural links are partially missing remains a challenging task. Existing methods typically rely on imputation-then-clustering on single-view missingness incomplete graphs, which are vulnerable to cross-view error propagation and cluster-boundary blurring under simultaneous attribute and structure missingness. To address these limitations, we propose a Robust Graph Clustering Network for Multiple Missing Data (RGCN), which is designed to handle simultaneous node attribute and graph structure incompleteness. RGCN introduces three key innovations: First, we design a view-decoupled dual-branch imputation to mitigate interference and enable mutual enhancement in recovering missing data. Second, we employ a multi-hyperspherical mixture prior to enhance intra-cluster compactness and inter-cluster separability on a directional latent manifold. Third, a boundary-aware contrastive enhancement objective mitigates the blurring of clusters caused by imputation bias. Extensive experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that RGCN consistently outperforms state-of-the-art baselines under various missing patterns.
Keyuan Qiu, Renda Han, Zhen Tang +6
Northeastern University · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Northeast Normal University +2
Graph neural networks have achieved strong performance on graph-structured data, but their effectiveness depends heavily on the quality of the observed graph. In real applications, graph topology is often imperfect: noisy edges may connect unrelated nodes, while missing edges may prevent useful information from being propagated. Existing robust graph learning methods mainly address this problem by removing suspicious edges or by learning a new graph structure during training. However, edge removal alone cannot recover missing connections, and graph structure learning may introduce additional optimization complexity. In this paper, we propose Topology-Aware Gaussian Repair (TAGR), a simple graph repair framework for robust message passing in graph neural networks. Instead of learning a dense adjacency matrix, TAGR constructs a sparse feature-neighborhood graph using an adaptive Gaussian kernel and combines it with a topology-aware residual correction of the observed graph. The Gaussian repair component introduces auxiliary edges between feature-similar nodes, while the residual correction preserves and reweights the original topology according to local feature and structural consistency. The repaired graph can be used directly with standard graph neural networks without changing their architectures. Extensive experiments on benchmark citation networks show that TAGR improves the robustness of GNNs under both noisy-edge and missing-edge settings. The analysis further show that Gaussian feature-neighborhood repair provides the main robustness gain, while topology-aware residual correction improves stability when the observed graph is incomplete. These results suggest that effective graph robustness can be achieved through lightweight sparse graph repair rather than dense graph structure learning.
Anubha Goel, Juho Kanniainen
Computing Science/Financial Computing and Data Analytics Group, Tampere University, Tampere, 33720, Finland