Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 46 references

DAS-PMVC: A Framework for Partial Multi-View Clustering via Dual Alignment and Structure Enhancement

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Dual alignment plus structure enhancement yields state-of-the-art partial multi-view clustering, with accuracy gains of 5.79–5.97 percentage points over the next best method on two datasets.

desk verdict The contrastive loss in Eqs. 15–16 is mathematically broken as written, which undermines the central dual-alignment claim; the anchor-graph idea and its ablation are worth attention, but the empirical evidence does not support the abstract's overstatement. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27761 v1 pith:AOQBELL7 submitted 2026-07-30 cs.LG cs.CV

Shubin Ma , Liang Zhao , Chuanye He , Zhenjiao Liu , Liang Zou , Lin Yuanbo Wu , Yu Shao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.CV
keywords partialmulti-viewclusteringviewalignmentanchorgraphHungarianalgorithmcontrastivelearningconvolutionalnetworkstructureenhancementdual
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces DAS-PMVC, a framework for clustering multi-view data where only a fraction of samples are aligned across views (the partial view alignment problem). The core proposal is a two-stage alignment: first, anchor graphs built from the known aligned samples project each view into a shared space and align via cosine similarity and a Hungarian step; second, a graph convolutional network refines the latent features, with contrastive learning and another Hungarian alignment to reduce initial errors. On six benchmark datasets under 50% alignment, the framework reports higher clustering accuracy than eight existing methods on most datasets, with the largest gains on 3Sources and Caltech20. The ablation indicates that anchor-graph alignment outperforms direct attribute-based alignment by over 50 percentage points in alignment accuracy, and removing the anchor module degrades clustering.

What carries the argument

The central object is the anchor graph: a bipartite graph linking each misaligned sample to the aligned samples (anchors) in the same view via Gaussian-cosine similarity. Structural filtering (Eq. 3) keeps only the top similarities, producing a joint embedding W(v) of fixed dimension for each view. The Hungarian algorithm then matches rows of W(u) and W(w) using cosine distances (Eq. 4), yielding a reordering matrix. A graph convolutional autoencoder learns deep embeddings H(v) from the aligned graphs, with losses for node-feature reconstruction and graph-structure reconstruction; a second Hungarian step aligns H(v) directly, and a contrastive loss (Eqs. 14–17) pulls corresponding nodes toge

What would settle it

Run DAS-PMVC on a dataset where the 'known aligned' anchors are artificially mismatched (e.g., randomly permute 10% of the anchor pairs while keeping the alignment rate at 0.5) and show that clustering ACC collapses to near the attribute-alignment baseline; alternatively, use two views with opposite feature orientations (e.g., one view negated or shifted by a non-linear transform) and observe that the cosine-based anchor alignment yields near-random permutation matrices.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that aligning views twice—first with anchor-graph structure in a shared embedding, then again on learned latent features via the Hungarian algorithm and a noise-resistant contrastive loss—substantially improves clustering accuracy for partially view-aligned data, compared with methods that align only once or rely on raw attributes. The structure-enhanced feature learning (pretraining with reconstruction and structural-alignment losses, then GCN-based reconstruction) further boosts discriminative power. When the alignment rate is 0.5, DAS-PMVC achieves the best or second-best ACC on 5 of 6 datasets, exceeding the second-best ACC by 5.79% on 3Sources and 5.97% on Caltech20. Th

Load-bearing premise

The method relies on the pre-specified aligned subset A being correctly matched and on cosine distance in the raw feature space being a reliable indicator of cross-view correspondence; if those known correspondences are wrong or if the feature spaces are not comparable across views, the anchor-graph alignment (Eqs. 2–4) has no credible signal and the whole pipeline fails.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported gains hold, DAS-PMVC gives a practical way to cluster real-world multi-view data where device failures or storage separation break full alignment, without discarding misaligned samples or converting the problem into incomplete multi-view clustering.
  • The anchor-graph alignment step is shown to be far more robust than aligning raw attributes directly—an improvement of 50+ percentage points in alignment accuracy across alignment rates from 0.1 to 0.9—suggesting that structure-based pre-alignment is a broadly useful building block.
  • The second alignment step, applied to learned features, reduces the residual errors of the initial anchor alignment, which is a general principle: alignment can be iteratively refined after representation learning.
  • On the Aloi and BDGP datasets the method does not consistently win on NMI/ARI or ACC, indicating that the framework's advantage is dataset-dependent and may weaken when class counts are high or graph structure is weak.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension is to stress-test the method's assumption of a clean, correctly labelled aligned subset: deliberately corrupt a small fraction of the 'known' aligned correspondences (e.g., swap 5–10% of anchor pairs) and measure whether the dual alignment recovers from the noise.
  • The paper restricts experiments to two views and alignment rate exactly 0.5; one could extend to three or more views where the anchor sets may not be fully shared, and to alignment rates below 0.1, which would better mimic extreme device failure scenarios.
  • The structural-filtering step (Eq. 3) is a hard threshold that computes W(v) from cosine distances in raw feature space; a softer probabilistic weighting or learned anchor sampling might preserve more information when views are heterogeneous in dimensionality (e.g., 1750-dim visual vs 79-dim textual in BDGP).
  • The concept of using known aligned samples as 'anchors' for cross-view mapping is reminiscent of semi-supervised alignment; it could also be applied to other cross-view tasks such as retrieval or translation, not just clustering.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes DAS-PMVC, a framework for partial multi-view clustering. It combines anchor-graph-based initial view alignment, graph-convolutional feature learning with structural reconstruction, and a second alignment stage that uses the Hungarian algorithm together with a contrastive loss. The method is evaluated on six datasets against eight baselines, with additional ablation studies on alignment rate and on removing the anchor-graph module. The abstract claims that DAS-PMVC outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods.

Significance. The partial-view-alignment problem is timely, and the proposed combination of anchor-graph alignment, structure-enhanced GCN training, and contrastive refinement is a reasonable design direction. The experimental section covers six datasets and eight comparison methods, which is a useful breadth, and the ablation in Table 4/Table 5 addresses the contribution of the anchor module. However, the central technical contribution is undermined by an incorrectly formulated contrastive loss, and the empirical claims are broader than the reported results support. No code, hyperparameters, or variance estimates are provided, so the reported numbers cannot be verified or reproduced. If the loss is corrected and the experimental claims are appropriately qualified, the framework would be of interest to the multi-view clustering community.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (15)] The positive-pair loss is written as L^p = d^2 + max(m-d,0)^2. For d < m, this equals d^2 + (m-d)^2, which is minimized at d = m/2, not at d = 0. Since m (Eq. 17) is a positive margin in general, the loss does not implement the stated goal of reducing the distance between positive pairs; it actively prevents exact alignment. This is load-bearing because L4 is added to the final objective in Eq. (18). Please replace this with a standard positive-pair loss (e.g., d^2) or provide a derivation that explains the m/2 behavior. The experiments must be rerun or clearly documented with the actual objective used.
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (16)] The negative-pair loss L^n = (1/m) * max(m*d^{1/2} - d^{3/2}, 0)^2 is non-standard and does not match the described aim of increasing negative-pair distances. It vanishes for d >= m but also at d = 0, and it is non-monotonic on (0, m). As written, it can assign zero loss to a negative pair at zero distance, which is the opposite of the intended behavior. Please clarify whether this is a typographical error and state the exact loss used in the reported experiments.
  3. [§4.2, Tables 2 and 3] The abstract and §4.2 claim that DAS-PMVC 'outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods' and 'leads the comparative algorithms on average,' but the tables do not support an unqualified version of this claim. On BDGP, DAS-PMVC is worse than TCLPVC on all three metrics (ACC 0.7796 vs. 0.9192, NMI 0.5812 vs. 0.7787, ARI 0.4177 vs. 0.8094). On Aloi, it loses NMI (0.6721 vs. 0.7406) and ARI (0.3769 vs. 0.4176). On Caltech20 and BBCsports, it also loses on NMI (and on Caltech20 on ARI). The claims should be qualified to 'outperforms most baselines on several datasets' or similar. In addition, no standard deviations, significance tests, code, or hyperparameter settings are reported, so the differences in the tables are not established as reliable.
  4. [§3.1, Eqs. (2)–(4)] The anchor-graph alignment, which is the first of the two alignments, is not specified precisely enough to reproduce. In Eq. (2), the denominator is a double sum over j=1..n_u and i=1..n_a, while the numerator uses i for misaligned samples and j for anchors; it is unclear whether normalization is global, row-wise, or column-wise. In Eq. (4), the roles of the rows and columns of W^(u) and W^(w) are ambiguous, and the definition of the index set ⟨w_j⟩_u is unclear. Please define all matrix dimensions and normalization operations explicitly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The index ranges in the denominator appear swapped: if rows correspond to misaligned samples (i) and columns to anchors (j), the sums should be over i=1..n_u and j=1..n_a.
  2. [Table 4] The table caption states that results are averaged over ten runs, but no standard deviations are reported. Adding variance or error bars would strengthen the ablation claim.
  3. [§4.1] Hyperparameters such as λ1, K, number of nearest samples n, number of GCN layers L, and σ are not specified. This information is required for reproducibility.
  4. [§4.2] The text says complexity analysis is provided in the appendix, but the provided manuscript does not contain an appendix.
  5. [Figure 3] The figure caption and labels contain unresolved placeholder symbols (e.g., '? = ?'), which should be fixed in the final version.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is empirical, validated on external benchmarks, and the alignment losses are constructed from known correspondences rather than from the reported clustering outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: 'Experimental results on various datasets demonstrate that the DAS-PMVC framework outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods in clustering performance.' This is tested on six external datasets against baseline methods, so the headline result is not true by definition. The anchor-graph alignment (Eqs. 2–5) constructs W from raw feature similarities to known aligned anchors and then applies Hungarian matching; the known aligned subset is an input, not a fitted target of the final clustering metrics. The pre-training loss L2 (Eq. 10) compares the recovered permutation matrix \bar P_a with the known shuffle P_a on a small aligned mini-batch; this is a supervised auxiliary objective on known correspondences, not a hidden label derived from the output. The contrastive loss (Eqs. 14–16) defines positive/negative pairs from the known aligned/misaligned partition. Self-citations appear ([19], [20], [41], [42]), but they are used as background or as baselines; the anchor-graph idea is also cited to external works [23], [27], and no uniqueness theorem or load-bearing premise is imported solely from the authors' prior work. The ablation studies compare the proposed anchor-based alignment with attribute-based alignment and with a variant without the anchor module, which directly tests the claimed component. One technical issue is worth noting outside the circularity rubric: Eq. 15, as written, is minimized at d = m/2 for d < m rather than at d = 0, which contradicts the stated goal of reducing positive-pair distance; that is a correctness/reproducibility concern, not a circular derivation. Overall, the derivation is self-contained and the empirical claim is independently falsifiable on the reported datasets.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework relies on several domain assumptions: known anchor correspondences, cross-view similarity transfer, and structural filtering preserving true matches. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • lambda_1
    Regularization weight in Eq. 13 balancing reconstruction and structure reconstruction; no value or tuning procedure given.
  • K (KNN neighbors)
    Number of neighbors for graph construction in Eq. 8; not specified.
  • n (nearest samples)
    Number of neighbors used in Eq. 4 and Eq. 12 for similarity sets; not specified.
  • L (GCN layers)
    Depth of graph convolutional encoder/decoder; not specified.
  • sigma in Gaussian kernel = 1
    Bandwidth 'typically set to 1' (Eq. 2); a fixed choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The known aligned subset A is correctly matched and available as anchors.
    The method uses all aligned samples as anchors (§3.1); if these correspondences are noisy or unavailable, the initial alignment is invalid.
  • domain assumption Cosine distance in the original feature spaces is a sufficient cross-view similarity measure.
    Eq. 2 builds W from cosine distance in each view and assumes it predicts cross-view correspondence.
  • ad hoc to paper Structural filtering (Eq. 3) removes only irrelevant edges, preserving all true correspondences.
    The zeroing rule assumes dissimilar samples are never needed for alignment, which may not hold for heterogeneous views.
  • standard math Hungarian algorithm applied to S in Eq. 4 yields a valid permutation matrix.
    The Hungarian algorithm is a standard solver for assignment problems; the paper uses it to obtain P_u,w.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of DAS-PMVC: A Framework for Partial Multi-View Clustering via Dual Alignment and Structure Enhancement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AOQBELL7

@misc{pith2026260727761,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: DAS-PMVC: A Framework for Partial Multi-View Clustering via Dual Alignment and Structure Enhancement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AOQBELL7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27761}
}
read the original abstract

In recent years, multi-view clustering has attracted widespread research interest. However, due to limitations in data collection devices, data across different views often suffer from misalignment, leading to the partial view alignment problem (PVAP). To mitigate the impact of view asymmetry and irrelevant samples, this paper proposes a framework for partial multi-view clustering via dual alignment and structure enhancement (DAS-PMVC), which leverages view structure consistency and semantic relevance. Specifically, DAS-PMVC includes three parts: \textbf{anchor graph structure alignment}, where sample joint embedding representations with consistent latent space are derived from anchor point relationships for initial view alignment; \textbf{structure-enhanced feature learning}, where the model learns view structure information through pretraining and combines multi-view graph convolutional networks to further extract deep latent features from the aligned graph structure to improve the discriminative power of representations; and \textbf{a dual alignment strategy}, where initial alignment is performed through the anchor graph in the pretraining phase, and contrastive learning loss and the Hungarian algorithm are introduced in the training phase to further optimize the alignment of latent features. Experimental results on various datasets demonstrate that the DAS-PMVC framework outperforms existing state-of-the-art methods in clustering performance, showcasing its effectiveness and superiority.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.27761 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example of multi-view data in different scenarios. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The anchor graph structure alignment: The green and blue represent the misaligned samples. The upper part of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Two-step training loss function: The loss in the pre-training stage consists of the sample reconstruction loss and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparison of two alignment methods on the Cal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Theodore P Beauchaine and Robert J Beauchaine III. 2002. A comparison of maximum covariance and K-means cluster analysis in classifying cases into known taxon groups.Psychological Methods7, 2 (2002), 245

    2002

  2. [2]

    Hongyun Cai, Vincent W Zheng, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2018. A com- prehensive survey of graph embedding: Problems, techniques, and applications. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering30, 9 (2018), 1616–1637

    2018

  3. [3]

    Li Fei-Fei and Pietro Perona. 2005. A bayesian hierarchical model for learning natural scene categories. In2005 IEEE computer society conference on computer vision and pattern recognition (CVPR’05), Vol. 2. IEEE, 524–531

    2005

  4. [4]

    Zhiqiang Fu, Yao Zhao, Dongxia Chang, Yiming Wang, and Jie Wen. 2025. Re- ordered𝑘-Means: A New Baseline for View-Unaligned Multi-View Clustering. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia27 (2025), 1962–1972

    2025

  5. [5]

    Hang Gao, Cheng Liu, Zuosong Cai, Hongming Sun, Gaoyang Li, Ying Li, and Wei Du. 2025. A Novel Approach for Effective Partially View-Aligned Clustering With Triple-Consistency.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology35, 10 (2025), 10250–10263

    2025

  6. [6]

    Fengjiao Gong, Yuzhou Nie, and Hongteng Xu. 2022. Gromov-Wasserstein multi- modal alignment and clustering. InProceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management. 603–613

    2022

  7. [7]

    Renxiang Guan, Junhong Li, Siwei Wang, Wenxuan Tu, Miaomiao Li, En Zhu, Xinwang Liu, and Ping Chen. 2025. Multi-view Graph Clustering with Dual Relation Optimization for Remote Sensing Data. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia(Dublin, Ireland)(MM ’25). 7346–7355

    2025

  8. [8]

    Gongde Guo, Hui Wang, David Bell, Yaxin Bi, and Kieran Greer. 2003. KNN model-based approach in classification. InOn The Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2003: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE: OTM Confederated International Confer- ences, CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE 2003, Catania, Sicily, Italy, November 3-7, 2003. Proceedings. Springer, 986–996

    2003

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Menglei Hu and Songcan Chen. 2018. Doubly Aligned Incomplete Multi-view Clustering. InProceedings of the Twenty-Seventh International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-18. 2262–2268

    2018

  2. [10]

    Zhenyu Huang, Peng Hu, Joey Tianyi Zhou, Jiancheng Lv, and Xi Peng. 2020. Partially view-aligned clustering.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33 (2020), 2892–2902

    2020

  3. [11]

    Abhishek Kumar and Hal Daumé. 2011. A co-training approach for multi-view spectral clustering. InProceedings of the 28th international conference on machine learning (ICML-11). 393–400

    2011

  4. [12]

    Haobin Li, Yunfan Li, Mouxing Yang, Peng Hu, Dezhong Peng, and Xi Peng. 2023. Incomplete Multi-view Clustering via Prototype-based Imputation. InProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-

    2023

  5. [13]

    Lusi Li, Zhiqiang Wan, and Haibo He. 2021. Incomplete multi-view clustering with joint partition and graph learning.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering35, 1 (2021), 589–602

    2021

  6. [14]

    Zhenglai Li, Chang Tang, Xiao Zheng, Xinwang Liu, Wei Zhang, and En Zhu. 2022. High-order correlation preserved incomplete multi-view subspace clustering. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing31 (2022), 2067–2080

    2022

  7. [15]

    Yijie Lin, Yuanbiao Gou, Zitao Liu, Boyun Li, Jiancheng Lv, and Xi Peng. 2021. Completer: Incomplete multi-view clustering via contrastive prediction. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 11174–11183

    2021

  8. [16]

    Yunxia Lin, Haoyu Hu, Bentian Li, Shuchang Zhao, and Hengchang Jing. 2025. Representation Auto-fused NMF based Hierarchical Clustering.Expert Systems with Applications283 (2025), 127560

    2025

  9. [17]

    Meng Liu, Yuzhe Li, Zhikui Chen, and Yilong Lin. 2026. Information-Driven Complementarity and Consistency Mining for Multi-View Clustering.IEEE Signal Processing Letters33 (2026), 216–220

    2026

  10. [18]

    Xinwang Liu, Xinzhong Zhu, Miaomiao Li, Lei Wang, Chang Tang, Jianping Yin, Dinggang Shen, Huaimin Wang, and Wen Gao. 2018. Late fusion incomplete multi- view clustering.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence41, 10 (2018), 2410–2423

    2018

  11. [19]

    Shubin Ma, Zhikui Chen, Lin Yuanbo Wu, and Liang Zhao. 2026. Multi-View Aligned Clustering Via Sample-Bundled Optimization: Anchor Graph Enhance- ment and Contrastive Propagation.IEEE Transactions on Multimedia(2026), 1–12

    2026

  12. [20]

    Shubin Ma, Liang Zhao, Mingdong Lu, Yifan Guo, and Bo Xu. 2025. Consistency- Aware Padding for Incomplete Multi-Modal Alignment Clustering Based on Self- Repellent Greedy Anchor Search. InProceedings of the Thirty-Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligenc...

    2025

  13. [21]

    D Priya and G Ramesh. 2019. The Hungarian method for the assignment problem, with generalized interval arithmetic and its applications. InJournal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1377. IOP Publishing, 012046

    2019

  14. [22]

    Bin Qian, Xiaobo Shen, Yanyang Gu, Zhenmin Tang, and Yuhua Ding. 2016. Double constrained NMF for partial multi-view clustering. In2016 International Conference on Digital Image Computing: Techniques and Applications (DICTA). IEEE, 1–7

    2016

  15. [23]

    Main Track

    3911–3919. Main Track

  16. [24]

    Yalan Qin, Chuan Qin, Xinpeng Zhang, and Guorui Feng. 2024. Dual Consensus Anchor Learning for Fast Multi-View Clustering.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing33 (2024), 5298–5311

    2024

  17. [25]

    E Schubert and A Zimek. 2010. ELKI multi-view clustering data sets based on the Amsterdam library of object images (ALOI).Zenodo(2010)

    2010

  18. [26]

    Hong Tao, Chenping Hou, Dongyun Yi, and Jubo Zhu. 2018. Multiview classifi- cation with cohesion and diversity.IEEE transactions on cybernetics50, 5 (2018), 2124–2137

    2018

  19. [27]

    Zhibin Wan, Changqing Zhang, Pengfei Zhu, and Qinghua Hu. 2021. Multi- view information-bottleneck representation learning. InProceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, Vol. 35. 10085–10092

    2021

  20. [28]

    Jingyu Wang, Zhenyu Ma, Feiping Nie, and Xuelong Li. 2021. Fast self-supervised clustering with anchor graph.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems33, 9 (2021), 4199–4212

    2021

  21. [29]

    Qianqian Wang, Zhengming Ding, Zhiqiang Tao, Quanxue Gao, and Yun Fu

  22. [30]

    Jie Wen, Yong Xu, and Hong Liu. 2018. Incomplete multiview spectral clustering with adaptive graph learning.IEEE transactions on cybernetics50, 4 (2018), 1418– 1429

    2018

  23. [31]

    Qianqian Wang, Huanhuan Lian, Gan Sun, Quanxue Gao, and Licheng Jiao. 2020. iCmSC: Incomplete cross-modal subspace clustering.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing30 (2020), 305–317

    2020

  24. [32]

    Jiang Xie, Xuexin Xiang, Shuyin Xia, Lian Jiang, Guoyin Wang, and Xinbo Gao

  25. [33]

    Wei Xia, Qianqian Wang, Quanxue Gao, Xiangdong Zhang, and Xinbo Gao. 2021. Self-supervised graph convolutional network for multi-view clustering.IEEE Transactions on Multimedia24 (2021), 3182–3192

    2021

  26. [34]

    Mouxing Yang, Yunfan Li, Zhenyu Huang, Zitao Liu, Peng Hu, and Xi Peng. 2021. Partially view-aligned representation learning with noise-robust contrastive loss. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 1134–1143

    2021

  27. [35]

    Hong Yu, Jia Tang, Guoyin Wang, and Xinbo Gao. 2021. A novel multi-view clus- tering method for unknown mapping relationships between cross-view samples. InProceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining. 2075–2083

    2021

  28. [36]

    Mouxing Yang, Yunfan Li, Peng Hu, Jinfeng Bai, Jiancheng Lv, and Xi Peng. 2022. Robust multi-view clustering with incomplete information.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence45, 1 (2022), 1055–1069

    2022

  29. [37]

    Xianchao Zhang, Linlin Zong, Xinyue Liu, and Hong Yu. 2015. Constrained NMF-based multi-view clustering on unmapped data. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 29

    2015

  30. [38]

    Zhongzhou Zhang and Lei Zhang. 2020. Hard Negative Samples Emphasis Tracker without Anchors. InProceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Multimedia(Seattle, WA, USA)(MM ’20). 4299–4308

    2020

  31. [39]

    Changqing Zhang, Yeqing Liu, and Huazhu Fu. 2019. Ae2-nets: Autoencoder in autoencoder networks. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2577–2585

    2019

  32. [40]

    Liang Zhao, Shubin Ma, Bo Xu, and Qingchen Zhang. 2025. Dual-Learning based Penalized Multi-Align Clustering for Multi-View Incomplete and Disorderly Data. InProceedings of the 33rd ACM International Conference on Multimedia. 1318–1326

    2025

  33. [41]

    Liang Zhao, Qiongjie Xie, Zhengtao Li, Songtao Wu, and Yi Yang. 2025. Dynamic Graph Guided Progressive Partial View-Aligned Clustering.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems36, 5 (2025), 9370–9382

    2025

  34. [42]

    Dongdong Zhao, Xiaoyi Hu, Shengwu Xiong, Jing Tian, Jianwen Xiang, Jing Zhou, and Huanhuan Li. 2021. K-means clustering and kNN classification based on negative databases.Applied soft computing110 (2021), 107732

    2021

  35. [43]

    Linlin Zong, Xianchao Zhang, and Xinyue Liu. 2018. Multi-view clustering on unmapped data via constrained non-negative matrix factorization.Neural Networks108 (2018), 155–171

    2018

  36. [45]

    Liang Zhao, Qiongjie Xie, Sontao Wu, and Shubin Ma. 2023. An end-to-end framework for partial view-aligned clustering with graph structure. InICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 1–5

    2023

  37. [2018]

    In2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM)

    Partial multi-view clustering via consistent GAN. In2018 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM). IEEE, 1290–1295

  38. [2024]

    Mgnr: A multi-granularity neighbor relationship and its application in knn classification and clustering methods.IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence46, 12 (2024), 7956–7972

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.