Abstract
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.
Keywords
Subject
Publication details
- Journal
- Not available
- Open access
- Green open access
Cite this article
APA 7
Sui, S., Tan, Z., Zhang, M., Khan, R. M. S., Hu, X., & Chen, T. (2026). Do More Modalities Always Help? A Geometric Perspective on Missing-Modality Robustness. https://omanscience.com/en/articles/do-more-modalities-always-help-a-geometric-perspective-on-missing-modality-robustness
MLA 9
Sui, Songyuan, et al. "Do More Modalities Always Help? A Geometric Perspective on Missing-Modality Robustness." https://omanscience.com/en/articles/do-more-modalities-always-help-a-geometric-perspective-on-missing-modality-robustness.
Chicago (author–date)
Sui, Songyuan, Zhen Tan, Mohan Zhang, Rana Muhammad Shahroz Khan, Xia Hu, and Tianlong Chen. 2026. "Do More Modalities Always Help? A Geometric Perspective on Missing-Modality Robustness." https://omanscience.com/en/articles/do-more-modalities-always-help-a-geometric-perspective-on-missing-modality-robustness.
Harvard
Sui, S., Tan, Z., Zhang, M., Khan, R. M. S., Hu, X. and Chen, T. (2026) 'Do More Modalities Always Help? A Geometric Perspective on Missing-Modality Robustness', Available at: https://omanscience.com/en/articles/do-more-modalities-always-help-a-geometric-perspective-on-missing-modality-robustness.
Vancouver
Sui S, Tan Z, Zhang M, Khan RMS, Hu X, Chen T. Do More Modalities Always Help? A Geometric Perspective on Missing-Modality Robustness. https://omanscience.com/en/articles/do-more-modalities-always-help-a-geometric-perspective-on-missing-modality-robustness
IEEE
S. Sui, Z. Tan, M. Zhang, R. M. S. Khan, X. Hu, and T. Chen, "Do More Modalities Always Help? A Geometric Perspective on Missing-Modality Robustness," https://omanscience.com/en/articles/do-more-modalities-always-help-a-geometric-perspective-on-missing-modality-robustness.