Transfer Learning for Enhanced Data Imputation: A Comprehensive Review of Applications, Recent Research, and Practical Resources

Missing data presents a significant obstacle in numerous analytical endeavors, compromising the integrity of datasets and the reliability of subsequent model-driven insights. Data imputation techniques aim to address this by estimating and replacing these absent values. Transfer learning (TL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm to augment imputation capabilities, leveraging knowledge acquired from related source domains or tasks to enhance performance, particularly when target data is scarce or exhibits complex patterns. This report provides a comprehensive review of the application of transfer learning in data imputation. It examines foundational concepts, explores diverse applications across critical domains such as healthcare (Electronic Health Records, clinical time series), general time series analysis (including financial and IoT data), computer vision (image inpainting), and omics data. The report delves into recent research, highlighting state-of-the-art techniques involving advanced architectures like Graph Convolutional Networks, Transformers, Large Language Models, and Implicit Neural Representations, alongside innovative fine-tuning strategies. Practical resources, including open-source libraries, notable datasets, and robust evaluation metrics, are systematically presented. Furthermore, the report critically analyzes prevailing challenges such as negative transfer, scalability, interpretability, and the handling of heterogeneous data and complex missingness mechanisms. It concludes by synthesizing key findings and offering strategic recommendations for both researchers and practitioners to navigate and advance the field of transfer learning for data imputation.

Introduction

The ubiquity of missing data is a persistent challenge across a multitude of fields, stemming from diverse causes such as data entry errors, sensor malfunctions, survey non-responses, or issues arising from data integration and corruption.¹ The absence of values can significantly impair data analysis, introduce bias into statistical models, degrade predictive performance, and ultimately undermine the reliability of decision-making processes.² Data imputation, the process of estimating and substituting missing values, serves as a critical countermeasure, aiming to restore dataset completeness, thereby facilitating robust analysis and minimizing the distortions caused by incomplete information.⁴

Traditional imputation methods, while often simple to implement, frequently fall short in capturing complex, non-linear relationships within data or handling intricate missingness patterns. This limitation has spurred the exploration of more sophisticated machine learning-based approaches. Within this context, transfer learning (TL) has emerged as a particularly promising paradigm. Transfer learning enables a model to leverage knowledge, in the form of features, parameters, or learned strategies, from a source task or domain to improve its performance on a related target task or domain.⁸ This is especially advantageous in scenarios where the target dataset is small, sparsely labeled, or exhibits characteristics that make learning from scratch challenging.⁹ For data imputation, TL offers the potential to develop more robust, accurate, and generalizable solutions by transferring imputation knowledge learned from large, comprehensive, or related datasets.

This report undertakes a comprehensive investigation into the multifaceted applications of transfer learning in data imputation. It will explore how TL is being applied across various domains, detail recent research advancements including novel model architectures and fine-tuning strategies, and identify practical resources such as software libraries, benchmark datasets, and evaluation methodologies. The analysis aims to provide an in-depth understanding of the current landscape, advanced topics, inherent challenges, and future trajectories in this evolving intersection of transfer learning and data imputation.

I. Foundational Concepts in Transfer Learning for Data Imputation

A. Principles of Transfer Learning in the Imputation Context

Transfer learning fundamentally involves the adaptation of knowledge from a pre-existing source task or domain to enhance learning in a new, yet related, target task or domain.⁸ In the context of data imputation, this typically means that a model pre-trained on a large and potentially complete dataset (the source) can be adapted to impute missing values more effectively in a smaller, different, or more specialized dataset (the target).¹⁰

Knowledge transfer can manifest in several ways. Feature representation transfer involves using features learned by a pre-trained model (e.g., embeddings from a deep neural network) as input for a new model on the target task. Parameter transfer, a common approach, involves initializing a model for the target task with parameters (or parts thereof) from a pre-trained model, followed by fine-tuning on the target data. Instance transfer focuses on re-weighting instances from the source domain to be more relevant to the target domain, although this is less directly applied to the core imputation mechanism itself.

Several types of transfer learning are pertinent to imputation. Inductive transfer learning occurs when the source and target tasks are different, irrespective of domain similarity. For example, an autoencoder pre-trained for general data reconstruction on a large dataset could be fine-tuned specifically for imputing missing values in a target dataset. Transductive transfer learning applies when the source and target tasks are the same, but the domains (data distributions) differ; here, knowledge from a labeled source domain aids learning in an unlabeled target domain. Unsupervised transfer learning is particularly relevant when both source and target tasks are unsupervised, such as pre-training an autoencoder on a large unlabeled dataset and then using it to impute missing values in another unlabeled dataset.

Key terms central to understanding TL include the source domain/task (where initial knowledge is acquired) and the target domain/task (where this knowledge is applied and refined). The process of initial learning on the source is pre-training, while adapting the pre-trained model to the target is fine-tuning. Domain adaptation specifically refers to techniques that address shifts in data distribution between the source and target domains.¹⁰

B. Understanding Data Missingness and Traditional Imputation Strategies

The nature of missing data significantly influences the choice and effectiveness of imputation strategies, including those based on transfer learning. Missing data mechanisms are broadly categorized into three types ¹:

1. Missing Completely at Random (MCAR): The probability of a value being missing is independent of both observed and unobserved variables. This is the simplest scenario but often unrealistic.
2. Missing at Random (MAR): The probability of a value being missing depends only on observed variables, not on the missing values themselves. Many advanced imputation methods assume MAR.
3. Missing Not at Random (MNAR): The probability of a value being missing depends on the unobserved value itself, or on other unobserved variables. This is the most challenging mechanism to handle, as the missingness process itself contains information.¹

The DMM (Different Missing Mechanisms) framework explicitly tackles the issue of mechanism mismatch, which arises when a single imputation model is used irrespective of the underlying missingness type, potentially leading to suboptimal or misleading results.¹² By analyzing the causal data generation processes for MAR and MNAR, DMM proposes tailored solutions. This framework acknowledges that MCAR is not only rare in real-world scenarios but also often unidentifiable. The use of sophisticated techniques like variational inference and normalizing flows within DMM to model the generation of missing data and enforce the identifiability of latent variables represents a significant advancement towards more principled, mechanism-aware imputation.¹² Such an approach underscores a necessary shift in the field, moving beyond generic imputation to methods that explicitly account for why data are missing.

Before the advent of sophisticated machine learning techniques, various classical imputation methods were, and often still are, employed. Simple approaches include listwise deletion (removing entire records with any missing values), which can severely reduce sample size and introduce bias, and mean/median/mode imputation, which replaces missing values with the central tendency of the observed values for that variable.³ While straightforward, these univariate methods ignore relationships between variables and can distort data distributions and correlations.⁶

More advanced statistical techniques include k-Nearest Neighbors (k-NN) imputation, which uses values from similar complete cases to impute missing ones, regression imputation, which predicts missing values based on other variables, and Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE), an iterative approach that builds a model for each variable with missing values conditioned on the other variables.¹ These methods offer improvements but can still struggle with complex data structures, high dimensionality, or specific data types like time series, where temporal dependencies are crucial.³ The limitations of these classical methods provide a strong motivation for exploring machine learning and, subsequently, transfer learning approaches for more robust and accurate imputation.

Interestingly, despite the push towards complex models, simplicity can sometimes be remarkably effective. For instance, in the context of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) time-series data, the “Last Observation Carried Forward” (LOCF) method, a classical approach, has demonstrated competitive performance for imputing vital signs.⁵ This phenomenon suggests that for certain data types characterized by strong temporal auto-correlation, the inherent properties of the data align well with simple imputation rules. Vital signs, for example, often exhibit high temporal continuity, meaning a recent past value is a strong predictor of a current missing value. In such cases, complex models might introduce unnecessary computational overhead or even risk overfitting if not meticulously tuned, especially in real-time clinical environments where efficiency and reliability are paramount. This observation serves as a reminder of the “no free lunch” theorem in imputation: the optimal method is often data- and context-dependent, and more complexity does not always guarantee better performance.

II. Applications of Transfer Learning in Data Imputation Across Domains

Transfer learning is increasingly being applied to enhance data imputation across a variety of domains, each with its unique data characteristics and challenges.

A. Healthcare and Electronic Health Records (EHR) / Clinical Data

Healthcare data, particularly Electronic Health Records (EHRs) and clinical time series, are notoriously prone to missing values due to the complexities of data collection in clinical practice, patient-specific factors, and system-level issues.³ Missingness rates can be substantial, data is often irregularly sampled, and comprises mixed data types (numerical, categorical, textual), all of which pose significant challenges for analysis and predictive modeling.³ The critical nature of healthcare decisions underscores the need for highly accurate and reliable imputation methods, as incomplete or poorly imputed data can lead to flawed medical analyses and suboptimal patient care.⁴

Deep learning models have laid groundwork for advanced imputation in EHRs. Denoising Autoencoders (DAE) and Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) have been adapted for this purpose. For example, studies have proposed enhanced versions like I-NAA (an improved DAE with kNN pre-imputation) and I-GAIN (an improved GAN architecture), which have demonstrated superior performance compared to standard baselines such as simple mean/mode imputation, kNN, MICE, and MissForest, especially under MAR and MNAR missingness conditions.³ Another notable development is the Pympute Python package, which offers a “Flexible imputation toolkit”.¹⁵ This toolkit considers data distribution characteristics like missingness patterns and skewness to dynamically select optimal imputation algorithms, outperforming single-model approaches on real-world datasets such as the Geisinger stroke dataset.¹⁵

Transfer learning offers several avenues for improving EHR imputation. One innovative approach involves transforming tabular EHR data into an image-like format. This allows the leveraging of powerful pre-trained Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), such as VGG16, originally designed for image analysis.⁸ In such schemes, features from the tabular data are arranged into a grid (e.g., based on their correlation using hierarchical clustering), and their normalized values can represent pixel intensities. The resulting “image” is then fed into a pre-trained CNN (with top layers often frozen to retain general feature extraction capabilities) to extract rich features. These features, potentially fused with original tabular data, are then used by machine learning classifiers for downstream tasks like heart disease detection. A hybrid VGG16-Random Forest model, for instance, achieved 92% accuracy in one such study.⁸ This tabular-to-image transformation strategy is a creative way to apply successful models from the vision domain to non-image data, suggesting a broader potential for adapting models across modalities through intelligent data representation. The underlying premise is that pre-trained CNNs have learned hierarchical features from vast image datasets that can capture complex inter-feature relationships, which might be beneficial for imputation if these features are used to predict missing values within the tabular structure.

Modular deep learning pipelines also incorporate transfer learning. These pipelines separate the imputation step from downstream analysis (e.g., classification), allowing for independent assessment and reuse of the imputation component.⁴ Transfer learning can be applied by using pre-trained imputers, such as Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) or Long Short-Term Memory networks (LSTMs), and transferring learned knowledge (e.g., model weights or hidden states) to initialize or inform downstream classifiers.¹⁶

For clinical time series, transfer learning has been explored using pre-trained RNNs. TimeNet, pre-trained on diverse non-medical time series, has been used for domain adaptation to extract features from clinical time series. HealthNet, pre-trained on various healthcare-specific tasks, has been used for task adaptation.¹⁰ Both have shown robustness to data scarcity in tasks like patient phenotyping and mortality prediction. Comparative studies on ICU datasets (e.g., MIMIC-III and a local dataset named COPRA) have evaluated classical methods against advanced models like BRITS (Bidirectional Recurrent Imputation for Time Series), SAITS (Self-Attention-based Imputation for Time Series), M-RNN (Multi-directional Recurrent Neural Network), and their transfer learning-adapted versions (TranBRITS, TranSAITS, TranM-RNN).⁵ While TranSAITS demonstrated the best performance on the transformed COPRA data, indicating successful knowledge transfer, the simpler “Last Observation Carried Forward” method remained competitive for vital signs, highlighting that the optimal approach can be data-dependent.⁵ The effectiveness of transfer learning in this context appears to be model- and dataset-dependent. TranSAITS, with its self-attention mechanism, might be more robust to discrepancies between source and target datasets, making it a better candidate for transfer. In contrast, models like TranBRITS and TranM-RNN, which rely heavily on specific temporal dependencies, did not show clear gains, possibly because these dependencies differed significantly between the source (MIMIC-III) and target (COPRA) datasets, even after data transformation procedures. This underscores the nuances in applying TL and the importance of careful model selection based on anticipated data characteristics.

A more recent approach, ImputeINR, utilizes Implicit Neural Representations (INR) to learn continuous functions for time series data.⁷ This method has shown superior imputation performance, especially for high missing ratios in healthcare data, and has been demonstrated to enhance downstream disease diagnosis tasks. While not inherently a transfer learning method in its core description, its capacity to handle sparse data effectively could be synergistically combined with transfer learning principles, for example, by pre-training the network that predicts the INR parameters.

Table 1 provides a comparative overview of selected transfer learning models and approaches for EHR and clinical data imputation.

Table 1: Comparative Overview of Transfer Learning Models/Approaches for EHR/Clinical Data Imputation

This table offers a structured summary, facilitating comparison and informed decision-making for researchers and practitioners addressing clinical imputation challenges. The diversity of these approaches highlights the active exploration of TL to tackle the critical need for accurate imputation in healthcare.

B. Time Series Data (General, including Financial, IoT, etc.)

Beyond the clinical domain, transfer learning is making significant inroads into imputing missing values in general time series data, which are prevalent in finance, Internet of Things (IoT), environmental monitoring, and many other areas. The sequential nature and temporal dependencies in time series data present unique challenges for imputation.

A major development is the application of Foundational Models and Large Language Models (LLMs) to time series tasks. While initially designed for natural language processing, the sequence-to-sequence architecture of models like Transformers lends itself to adaptation for numerical time series.

The LLIAM (Llama Lora-Integrated Autoregressive Model), for instance, adapts the LLaMA LLM for Time Series Forecasting (TSF) using Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) for efficient fine-tuning and a specialized time-series prompting schema.18 LLIAM has demonstrated competent results without requiring complex architectural modifications and shows potential for zero-shot forecasting, where it can make predictions on unseen datasets without specific training. Although LLIAM’s primary focus is forecasting, the underlying principles of adapting LLMs to sequential numerical data are highly relevant for imputation, which can be framed as predicting missing parts of a sequence.

The UniTS (Unified Time Series Model) represents a significant advancement towards universal time series modeling.²⁰ UniTS is a single model with shared parameters designed to handle a variety of time series tasks, including forecasting, classification, imputation, and anomaly detection. It employs a novel unified network backbone incorporating sequence and variable attention alongside a dynamic linear operator. Crucially, UniTS demonstrates strong few-shot learning and prompt learning capabilities for imputation. This means a pre-trained UniTS model can be effectively adapted for imputation on new datasets or tasks with minimal additional training data or prompting. This capability for few-shot transfer learning from a multi-task pre-trained model is a powerful paradigm, potentially reducing the substantial effort typically required for task-specific model training for imputation. The model achieves this with a relatively modest parameter count (3.4M) compared to some specialized models, yet can outperform them.²¹

Surveys on the use of LLMs for time series imputation confirm their suitability for this task.²² Performance is generally influenced by the model’s parameter count and the nature of its pre-training. Interestingly, smaller, specialized models like BERT can sometimes compete with or even outperform larger models such as Llama2 and Phi-2 on specific datasets. The attention mechanism and feedforward network components within LLMs are identified as particularly crucial for successful adaptation to imputation tasks, with parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) methods like LoRA being essential for managing computational costs.²² A taxonomy of LLM applications for general time series analysis further categorizes approaches into Prompting, Time Series Quantization, Aligning, Vision as Bridge, and Tool Integration.²³ Among these, “Aligning” (e.g., models like GPT4TS, Time-LLM, Lag-Llama which align time series embeddings with LLM’s semantic space) and “Time Series Quantization” (discretizing time series into tokens) appear most directly applicable for developing imputation models.

In the domain of financial time series, where data scarcity can impede the development of robust predictive models, transfer learning is particularly valuable.⁹ A key challenge here is the selection of appropriate source domains to avoid negative transfer. Similarity functions are critical for measuring the relatedness between source and target financial datasets. Research has also explored enhancing these similarity functions using techniques like Gramian Angular Field (GAF) transformations, which can better capture the temporal and angular relationships inherent in time series data.⁹

For incomplete multi-view time series data, where multiple correlated time series might have missing values, the GHICMC (Global graph propagation with Hierarchical information transfer for Incomplete Contrastive Multi-view Clustering) model offers a sophisticated solution.²⁴ GHICMC employs view-specific Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) to capture the structure within each time series (view) and a global graph propagation module that uses hierarchical information transfer to adaptively impute missing data. This approach unifies representation learning, imputation, and clustering into a single framework. The concept of hierarchical information transfer within GHICMC is particularly noteworthy from a TL perspective. It allows the model to leverage information from both local graph structures (within individual time series) and global graph structures (across different, related time series) for imputation. This suggests that for multi-attribute or multi-modal time series, transfer learning can benefit significantly from explicitly modeling inter-dependencies at various levels of granularity. Missing values in one time series might be more accurately inferred by considering patterns in other related series or from the overall system dynamics captured by a global graph structure.

Addressing the fundamental issue of missing data mechanisms, the DMM (Different Missing Mechanisms) framework provides tailored solutions for time series imputation under MAR and MNAR conditions.¹² It uses variational inference and normalizing flows to explicitly model the data generation and missingness processes. Similarly, for sparse time series, ImputeINR learns continuous functions using implicit neural representations, enabling fine-grained imputation even with extremely high missingness ratios.⁷ Its design includes adaptive group-based INR and variable clustering to effectively capture complex temporal patterns and cross-channel correlations.

Table 2 presents a summary of leading foundational models and LLMs applied to time series imputation or analysis tasks relevant to imputation.

Table 2: Leading Foundational Models and LLMs in Time Series Imputation/Analysis

This table provides a snapshot of advanced models leveraging transfer learning, often through foundational model paradigms, for time series imputation. It highlights the diverse architectural choices and adaptation strategies being explored to tackle the complexities of missing sequential data.

C. Computer Vision and Image Data (Imputation as Inpainting)

In computer vision, data imputation often takes the form of image inpainting, which is the task of filling in missing or damaged regions in an image. Transfer learning plays a significant role here, primarily through the use of Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) pre-trained on large-scale image datasets like ImageNet.

Pre-trained CNNs such as VGG16, ResNet50, and InceptionV3 serve as powerful feature extractors or as base models for fine-tuning on specific inpainting tasks.⁸ Common transfer learning strategies include freezing the weights of the early convolutional layers (which learn general low-level features like edges and textures) and training only the later, more specialized layers, or fine-tuning all layers with a smaller learning rate to adapt the entire network to the new task.²⁶ An example of cross-domain application is the VGG16-Random Forest hybrid model, which transformed tabular heart disease data into an image-like format to leverage VGG16’s feature extraction capabilities, demonstrating how knowledge from image domains can be transferred to other data types.⁸

Deep learning approaches, particularly Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), are prevalent in image inpainting. However, these methods can struggle with large missing regions, often producing results with structural distortions or blurred textures.²⁷ To address these issues, researchers have developed multi-stage approaches, such as predicting edges first and then inpainting the image guided by these predicted structures.²⁷ Attention mechanisms, including axial attention, multi-scale fusion attention, and attention transfer networks, are also incorporated to help models capture long-range dependencies and better integrate contextual information, leading to more coherent and detailed inpainted regions.²⁷ For specific applications like facial image inpainting, multistage GANs combined with global attention mechanisms (GAM), encoder-decoder architectures, and skip connections have been proposed to improve semantic coherence and texture quality.²⁸

Transfer learning is explicitly applied to image inpainting to tackle challenges like data scarcity for specialized tasks. A notable example is the restoration of old photographs, which often suffer from unique degradation patterns and for which large, curated datasets are rare.¹¹ In one such study, a two-stage image inpainting network was used as a base. The generator component of this network was decoupled into a feature extractor (encoder) and a classifier (decoder). Transfer learning was implemented by training a domain-invariant feature extractor using a minimax game approach on both a large source domain of general images (e.g., CelebA) and the smaller target domain of old photos. This domain-invariant feature extractor, when combined with the original encoder, significantly improved the restoration quality of old photos compared to training without transfer learning, with notable gains in PSNR (Peak Signal-to-Noise Ratio), SSIM (Structural Similarity Index Measure), and FID (Fréchet Inception Distance) scores.¹¹ This strategy of decoupling the generator and training a domain-invariant feature extractor is a key insight for image inpainting with transfer learning, especially when target domain data is limited. It allows the model to harness robust, general-purpose features learned from a large, diverse source dataset and then adapt these features to the specific characteristics and degradation types of the target domain (e.g., old photos), leading to better generalization than training solely on sparse target data.

Tutorials on fine-tuning general-purpose transformer models, such as Vision Transformers (ViT) for image classification ²⁹ and text-based transformers like GPT-2 for sequence classification ³⁰, provide foundational knowledge and practical steps for adapting pre-trained models. These general frameworks, which involve selecting a pre-trained model, preparing data (including specific transformations for images or tokenization for text), setting up training arguments, and defining evaluation metrics, can be conceptually extended to image completion or inpainting tasks by framing them as conditional image generation problems.

D. Omics Data

Omics data, encompassing genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics, present a unique set of challenges for data imputation. These datasets are often characterized by high dimensionality, complex non-linear relationships between features, technical variations introduced during sample processing and measurement, inherent sample heterogeneity, and non-random missingness patterns.¹ For instance, in single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) data, distinguishing between true biological zeros (genes not expressed) and technical dropouts (genes expressed but not detected) is a critical and difficult problem.¹ The choice of appropriate data distributions (e.g., Negative Binomial or Zero-Inflated Negative Binomial for scRNA-seq count data) is also crucial for accurate modeling and imputation.¹

Deep learning methods, including autoencoders (AEs), variational autoencoders (VAEs), GANs, and Transformer-based models, are increasingly being adopted for imputing missing values in omics data due to their ability to capture complex patterns in high-dimensional spaces.¹

Transfer learning offers a promising strategy to address some of the challenges in omics data imputation, particularly data scarcity for specific conditions or cell types. An example is TDimpute, a neural network-based method that utilizes transfer learning to impute missing gene expression values.¹ TDimpute first trains a multi-layer fully connected neural network on a large, comprehensive pan-cancer dataset, such as The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA). This pre-trained network is then fine-tuned on a smaller, specific cancer dataset. This two-step approach enhances the model’s performance and adaptability to the target dataset by leveraging the broader patterns learned from the pan-cancer data. This application demonstrates the viability of transfer learning in the omics domain. Given the high dimensionality and often limited sample sizes available for studying specific diseases or biological states, pre-training on large, publicly available repositories like TCGA can provide a robust foundation of learned biological features and relationships. Fine-tuning allows these general patterns to be specialized to the nuances of the target omics dataset, leading to more accurate imputation than would be achievable by training a model from scratch on limited data alone.

E. Other Emerging Application Areas

The principles of transfer learning for data imputation are also being explored in other specialized domains:

• Bearing Fault Diagnosis: In industrial maintenance, sensor data from machinery like bearings is crucial for predicting failures. This data can suffer from missing values. Transfer learning has been applied using regression-based techniques to fill in missing sensor readings, reportedly achieving accuracies up to 90% and outperforming alternative methods.³¹ The methodology described involves training a transfer learning model on a subset of data to learn an appropriate range for imputation, then adapting the model using principles reminiscent of genetic algorithms, such as fitness functions, crossover, and mutation, to optimize the imputation process.
• Building Data Imputation: Data from building management systems (e.g., energy consumption, environmental controls) often has missing entries. Research in this area is exploring the combination of physics-informed machine learning with Denoising Autoencoders to improve imputation accuracy and, importantly, enhance the interpretability of the imputed values.¹⁴ Transfer learning can be particularly beneficial when historical data for a specific building is limited, allowing models pre-trained on data from other similar buildings or general physical principles to be adapted.
• Soft Sensors under Various Operation Conditions: Soft sensors are inferential models that predict difficult-to-measure process variables from easily measurable ones in industrial processes. Their performance can be hampered by missing input data and changes in operating conditions. A Partial Transfer Learning Network (PTL-Net) has been proposed for simultaneous data imputation and soft sensing.³² This approach selectively transfers common components of knowledge between source and target operational domains, rather than transferring all model parameters directly. This “partial” transfer is designed to overcome model mismatch problems when operating conditions change. PTL-Net also incorporates a compactness loss function to mitigate the influence of abnormal features that might be mapped from missing data during the imputation process.

These emerging applications underscore the versatility of transfer learning as a strategy to enhance data imputation across a wide spectrum of real-world problems, often by adapting knowledge from more data-rich environments or related tasks to improve model robustness and accuracy in data-sparse or challenging conditions.

III. Recent Research and State-of-the-Art Techniques

The field of transfer learning for data imputation is characterized by ongoing research into advanced model architectures, sophisticated fine-tuning strategies, and innovative methods for handling specific data types and challenges.

A. Advanced Architectures and Models Leveraging Transfer Learning

Recent advancements have seen the development and adaptation of powerful neural network architectures for imputation tasks, often with transfer learning capabilities either built-in or readily applicable.

Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs) are well-suited for data with underlying graph structures. The GHICMC model, designed for incomplete multi-view clustering, exemplifies this by using view-specific GCNs to encode the graph structure within each data view (e.g., different sensor readings over time).²⁴ A key innovation is its global graph propagation module with hierarchical information transfer, which adaptively imputes missing data by considering relationships both locally (within a single view) and globally (across multiple views). This unified approach to representation learning, imputation, and clustering, where information for imputation is hierarchically transferred, showcases a sophisticated application of graph-based learning that can be enhanced by pre-training or transferring graph embeddings.

Transformers and Large Language Models (LLMs) have revolutionized sequence modeling and are increasingly being adapted for numerical time series, including imputation.

• LLIAM adapts the LLaMA LLM for time series forecasting using LoRA, demonstrating efficient adaptation of large pre-trained models.¹⁸
• UniTS stands out as a unified transformer-based model capable of handling multiple time series tasks, including imputation, through few-shot learning via fine-tuning or prompt-tuning of a multi-domain pre-trained model.²⁰ Its architecture, featuring sequence and variable attention and a dynamic linear operator, allows it to learn universal time series representations. Despite its broad capabilities, UniTS can be more parameter-efficient than some specialized models.²¹
• General surveys on LLMs for time series imputation indicate that models like BERT, Llama2, Phi-2, and T5, when adapted using PEFT methods (especially LoRA), are suitable for this task.²² Performance hinges on model size, the type of pre-training (denoising autoencoding-like objectives are beneficial), and the fine-tuning strategy, with attention and feedforward network components being particularly important for adaptation.
• A taxonomy for LLM applications to time series provides a framework for understanding different adaptation approaches, such as Prompting, Time Series Quantization, Aligning, Vision as Bridge, and Tool Integration.²³ The “Aligning” category, which includes models like GPT4TS, Time-LLM, and Lag-Llama that align time series embeddings with the LLM’s semantic space, and “Quantization” methods are particularly relevant for developing imputation models.
• The fusion of LLMs with other architectures is also emerging, as seen in GATGPT, a pre-trained LLM combined with a Graph Attention Network for spatiotemporal imputation.²⁵

Implicit Neural Representations (INR) offer a novel paradigm for representing signals. ImputeINR leverages this by learning continuous functions to represent time series, with the parameters of these functions predicted by a transformer-based network conditioned on sparsely observed values.⁷ This approach is particularly effective for imputing data with high missing ratios, as often encountered in healthcare. ImputeINR features an adaptive group-based form of the INR continuous function and applies variable clustering to effectively capture intricate temporal patterns and cross-channel correlations. The shift from imputing discrete data points to learning a continuous underlying signal function is a significant conceptual advance. INR’s decoupling from sampling frequency makes it inherently powerful for sparse and irregularly sampled time series, as it can generate fine-grained imputations from very few observations. This area holds considerable potential for future transfer learning research, for instance, by pre-training the INR predictor network on diverse time series datasets to enhance its generalization capabilities to new, sparse series.

Deep Generative Models, such as GANs and VAEs, continue to be refined for imputation. Improved versions like I-GAIN and I-NAA have shown promise for EHR imputation.³ However, broad benchmark studies suggest that while powerful, these generative models (e.g., VAE, GAIN) can sometimes be outperformed by simpler, well-tuned supervised methods.¹³ Moreover, GANs like GAIN can suffer from training instability issues such as mode collapse, where the generator produces limited variety in its outputs.³³

Specialized time series imputation models like BRITS, SAITS, and M-RNN are often used as strong baselines or are themselves adapted using transfer learning.⁵ SAITS, with its self-attention mechanism, frequently demonstrates robust performance and has been successfully adapted via transfer learning (TranSAITS).

B. Fine-tuning Strategies and Model Adaptation for Imputation

Effective adaptation of pre-trained models to specific imputation tasks is crucial for realizing the benefits of transfer learning. Various fine-tuning strategies are employed:

Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) methods are essential for large models like LLMs to reduce computational burden and memory requirements.

• LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation) is a prominent PEFT technique. It involves freezing the pre-trained model weights and injecting trainable rank decomposition matrices into specified layers of the Transformer architecture (often attention and feedforward layers).¹⁸ This drastically reduces the number of trainable parameters compared to full fine-tuning. LoRA and its quantized version, QLoRA, are widely used for adapting LLMs for time series tasks, including imputation, often achieving leading performance.²²
• Other PEFT methods like AdaLora (which adaptively allocates parameter budget among layers) and (IA)³ (Infused Adapter by Inhibiting and Amplifying Inner Activations) have also been explored, though LoRA and QLoRA frequently show strong and consistent results.²²

Prompt Tuning is another PEFT approach, particularly relevant for LLMs. Instead of fine-tuning model weights, prompt tuning involves adding a small number of learnable “prompt” tokens to the input sequence. These prompts are optimized to steer the behavior of the frozen pre-trained model for the target task. UniTS demonstrates the capability of prompt tuning for few-shot transfer to new imputation tasks.²⁰

Standard Fine-tuning Approaches remain relevant, especially for models smaller than LLMs or when more extensive adaptation is needed.

• Freezing vs. Unfreezing Layers: A common strategy involves deciding which parts of the pre-trained model to update. Early layers often learn general features and can be frozen, while later layers, which learn more task-specific features, are fine-tuned.²⁶ Alternatively, all layers can be fine-tuned, often with a lower learning rate than training from scratch, to gently adapt the entire model.¹⁶
• Modular Pipeline Fine-tuning: In pipelines where imputation is a distinct module, specific strategies can be applied. For instance, one might freeze the weights of a pre-trained imputer and train only a downstream classifier, or unfreeze and fine-tune both components together, or even transfer learned hidden states from a pre-trained imputer to initialize an RNN-based classifier.¹⁶

Curriculum Learning or Staged Training involves structuring the learning process, perhaps by starting with easier examples or tasks and gradually increasing complexity. The multi-step training procedure for developing domain-invariant feature extractors in the context of old photo inpainting (decoupling the generator, training feature generators, then training a domain-invariant encoder) is an example of such a staged adaptation process.¹¹

Effective fine-tuning also relies on careful Learning Rate Scheduling (e.g., polynomial decay, step decay, cyclical learning rates) and Hyperparameter Optimization (e.g., for batch size, number of epochs) to ensure stable convergence and optimal performance.²⁶

Tutorials on fine-tuning models like GPT-2 for sequence classification ³⁰ and Vision Transformers for image classification ²⁹ provide practical guidance. These typically involve steps like selecting the pre-trained model and target dataset, loading and preparing the data (including tokenization for text or specific image transformations), initializing the base model for the new task (e.g., adjusting the classification head), defining an evaluation method, and configuring and running the training process using tools like the Hugging Face Trainer class.

C. Innovations in Handling Specific Data Types and Challenges

Beyond general architectural and fine-tuning advancements, research has also focused on innovative TL-based solutions tailored to specific data types and inherent imputation challenges:

• Tabular-to-Image Transformation for TL: As previously discussed, this technique reshapes tabular data (e.g., EHR features) into an image-like format, often by ordering features based on correlation (e.g., via hierarchical clustering) and mapping feature values to pixel intensities.⁸ This allows the application of powerful pre-trained CNNs (like VGG16) for feature extraction, which can then be used for imputation or downstream tasks. This approach creatively bridges the gap between different data modalities to leverage well-established vision models.
• Mechanism-Aware Imputation: The DMM Framework explicitly addresses the critical issue of differing missing data mechanisms (MAR, MNAR).¹² Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, DMM tailors imputation models based on the identified mechanism, using variational inference and normalizing flows to model the underlying data generation and missingness processes. This represents a move towards more principled imputation that respects the statistical nature of the missing data.
• Continuous Representation for Sparse Time Series: ImputeINR tackles the challenge of highly sparse time series by using implicit neural representations to model the series as continuous functions.⁷ This is particularly advantageous as INR is not tied to a fixed sampling frequency and can generate fine-grained imputations even from very few observed data points. The use of an adaptive group-based INR function and variable clustering further enhances its ability to capture complex temporal patterns and cross-channel correlations.
• Multi-View Imputation: For datasets consisting of multiple related views or modalities (e.g., different types of sensor data from the same system), GHICMC uses GCNs and hierarchical information transfer to impute missing values.²⁴ It exploits both local (within-view) and global (cross-view) graph structures, allowing information from complete views to inform imputation in incomplete ones.
• Partial Transfer Learning: The PTL-Net approach, designed for soft sensor applications with varying operational conditions, implements partial transfer learning.³² It selectively transfers only common and relevant components of knowledge between source and target domains, rather than all parameters. This strategy aims to overcome model mismatch problems that can arise from direct, full-model transfer when domain characteristics differ significantly. It also uses a compactness loss to better handle features derived from missing data.

These innovations demonstrate a trend towards more specialized and context-aware transfer learning strategies for data imputation, moving beyond generic model adaptation to address the specific nuances of different data types, missingness patterns, and application domains.

IV. Practical Resources for Implementing Transfer Learning in Imputation

Successfully implementing transfer learning for data imputation requires access to appropriate software libraries, relevant datasets for pre-training and evaluation, robust benchmark methodologies, and a clear understanding of evaluation metrics.

A. Open-Source Libraries and Frameworks

A growing ecosystem of open-source tools supports the development and application of TL-based imputation methods.

Specialized Imputation Libraries with Potential for TL Extension:

• Pympute: A Python package specifically designed for imputing missing values in Electronic Health Records (EHRs). Its “Flexible” method, which considers data distribution characteristics to select optimal imputation algorithms, provides a framework that could be extended to incorporate transfer learning models or strategies.¹⁵
• MLimputer: This Python library offers an automated pipeline for handling missing values using regression-based prediction with a variety of machine learning models, including RandomForest, XGBoost, and CatBoost.³⁴ It features customizable pipelines and evaluation modules. While not inherently a TL library, its structure is amenable to extension, for example, by integrating fine-tuning of pre-trained models as one of its imputation engines. The code is available on GitHub (TsLu1s/mlimputer).
• GHICMC: The source code for this model, which performs incomplete multi-view clustering with an integrated imputation step using GCNs and hierarchical information transfer, is available on GitHub (KelvinXuu/GHICMC).²⁴

Time Series Focused Libraries with TL and Imputation Capabilities:

• UniTS: The code and datasets for the Unified Time Series Model are publicly available on GitHub (mims-harvard/UniTS).²⁰ This repository includes scripts for pre-training the model, as well as for performing few-shot fine-tuning and prompt-tuning for various tasks, including imputation. A tutorial is also provided to guide users in applying UniTS to their own custom datasets.
• TabPFN-TS: The GitHub repository (PriorLabs/tabpfn-time-series) provides code for zero-shot time series forecasting using TabPFN.³⁵ Although focused on forecasting, its methodology for applying tabular foundation models to time series could inspire TL approaches for imputation.
• Awesome-Multimodal-LLMs-Time-Series: This GitHub list (mllm-ts/Awesome-Multimodal-LLMs-Time-Series) serves as a valuable curated resource, providing links to papers and code for numerous LLMs applied to time series analysis.²⁵ It includes foundational models like TimeGPT-1, Lag-llama, Timer, MOMENT, and Chronos, many of which could potentially be adapted or fine-tuned for time series imputation tasks.

General Purpose ML/DL Libraries (Foundation for TL):

These libraries provide the fundamental building blocks for constructing and training models used in transfer learning.

• TensorFlow: An open-source machine learning library developed by Google, widely used for building and deploying a broad range of ML and DL models.³⁶ It features the high-level Keras API, TensorFlow Extended (TFX) for end-to-end ML pipelines, and TensorFlow Lite for deployment on mobile and embedded devices.
• PyTorch: Another leading open-source machine learning library, particularly favored in the research community for its flexibility, dynamic computation graphs, and strong GPU support.³⁶
• Scikit-learn: A comprehensive Python library for classical machine learning, offering a wide array of algorithms for tasks like classification, regression, clustering, and dimensionality reduction.³⁶ It includes several imputation utilities (e.g., SimpleImputer, KNNImputer ⁶) and is often used for implementing baseline methods or as a component within more complex TL pipelines.
• Keras: A high-level neural networks API, typically used with TensorFlow as its backend, designed for rapid prototyping and ease of use in developing deep learning models.³⁶
• Hugging Face Transformers: This library has become a de facto standard for working with Transformer-based models.³⁰ It provides access to a vast collection of pre-trained models (such as BERT, GPT, T5) and a suite of tools for fine-tuning them for various NLP tasks. Its utility is increasingly being extended to other sequence data types, including time series, making it a key resource for TL involving transformer architectures. The Trainer class, in particular, simplifies the fine-tuning process.

Other relevant libraries include OpenCV for computer vision tasks ³⁶, and NLTK, SpaCy, and Gensim for natural language processing ³⁶, which can be useful if imputation tasks involve or are augmented by textual data.

Table 3 summarizes key open-source libraries and frameworks relevant to implementing TL-based data imputation.

Table 3: Key Open-Source Libraries and Frameworks for TL-Based Data Imputation

This table serves as a practical starting point for practitioners seeking tools to implement TL-based imputation, categorized by their primary focus and highlighting their TL-relevant capabilities.

B. Datasets, Benchmarks, and Evaluation Metrics

Robust evaluation is paramount in assessing the efficacy of imputation methods, including those leveraging transfer learning. This requires suitable datasets for training and testing, established benchmarks for comparison, and comprehensive evaluation metrics.

Publicly Available Datasets Used in Imputation Research:

A variety of datasets are commonly used in the literature to develop and test imputation techniques:

• EHR/Clinical: The Geisinger Stroke Dataset ¹⁵, the widely used MIMIC-III (Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III) critical care database ⁵, and local hospital datasets like COPRA (used in comparison with MIMIC-III) ⁵ are prominent examples for ICU and general EHR data. Other clinical datasets include the Framingham Heart Study, Physionet heart disease dataset, UCI heart disease dataset, and various stroke datasets.³
• Image Data (for Inpainting): Standard datasets for image inpainting research include CelebA (celebrity faces), Places2 (scenes), and Facade.¹¹ The Food-101 dataset has also been used in transfer learning experiments for image tasks.²⁶
• Time Series Data: The UniTS model was evaluated on 38 multi-domain datasets.²⁰ Common benchmarks for time series forecasting and imputation include datasets like ETTh1, ETTm1, ETTh2 (Electricity Transformer Temperature), Weather, and Electricity.²²
• Omics Data: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) is a large-scale, publicly available dataset frequently used for pre-training or evaluating models in cancer genomics research, including imputation.¹

Benchmarking Studies:

Comparative benchmarking is crucial for understanding the relative strengths and weaknesses of different imputation methods.

• One comprehensive study benchmarked a range of imputation methods, from simple baselines to modern deep generative models, on 69 heterogeneous datasets.¹³ This study varied missingness patterns (MCAR, MAR, MNAR) and missingness fractions, evaluating both imputation quality and the impact on downstream machine learning task performance. A key finding was that Random Forest-based imputation often achieved the best overall results.
• Another study specifically compared classical, advanced (BRITS, SAITS, M-RNN), and transfer learning-adapted imputation methods on the MIMIC-III and COPRA ICU datasets, providing insights into performance in a critical care context.⁵

Evaluation Metrics for Imputation:

The choice of evaluation metrics significantly impacts the assessment of imputation model performance.

• Standard Predictive Accuracy Metrics: Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and Mean Absolute Error (MAE) are widely used to measure the difference between imputed values and true (masked) values for numerical data.⁵
• Limitations of RMSE: While popular, RMSE primarily focuses on point-wise predictive accuracy and has limitations.³³ It may not adequately capture whether the imputation preserves the overall data distribution, can poorly detect issues like mode collapse in GAN-based imputers, and may not reflect improvements gained from distributional transformations (e.g., using Quantile Transform preprocessing). An imputation model can achieve a low RMSE by accurately predicting the mean, even if it fails to capture the true underlying distribution of the data.³³
• Metrics for Categorical Data: The F1-score is commonly used to evaluate the imputation of categorical variables.¹³
• Broader Evaluation Strategies: A more holistic evaluation often involves a suite of metrics and approaches ⁶:

• Qualitative Visual Inspection: Plotting histograms of imputed versus original data distributions provides a visual check for plausibility.⁶ Visualizing learned kernels or feature maps can also offer insights, particularly for deep learning models.²⁶
• Statistical Distance Measures: These metrics quantify the dissimilarity between the probability distributions of the imputed and original data. Examples include Cohen’s Distance Test (CDT) and various ϕ-divergences like Kullback-Leibler (KL) divergence and Jensen-Shannon Distance (JSDist). JSDist has been found to be more effective than RMSE or CDT in detecting issues like mode collapse in generative imputation models.³³
• Comparison of Descriptive Statistics: Comparing summary statistics such as the median, Interquartile Range (IQR), and skewness of the imputed data against the original data can reveal whether the imputation preserves key distributional properties.³³
• Downstream Task Performance: Perhaps the most practical evaluation is to assess the impact of imputation on the performance of a subsequent machine learning model trained on the imputed data (e.g., classification accuracy, F1-score, regression error).³ This directly measures the utility of the imputation for the end analytical goal.
• Reconstruction Loss (RL): A proposed aggregated metric that combines median, skewness, and IQR reconstruction performance, particularly useful for evaluating imputation of data with non-normal distributions.³³
• Other Evaluation Considerations: Sensitivity analysis (assessing how results change with different imputation parameters or assumptions) and consultation with domain experts (to validate the plausibility of imputed values) are also valuable components of a thorough evaluation strategy.⁶ Cross-validation should be used where data permits to ensure robust performance estimates.⁶

C. Conceptual Guide to Implementing Transfer Learning for Imputation

Implementing transfer learning for data imputation involves a systematic process, from understanding the data to evaluating the adapted model.

Step 1: Understand Data and Missingness

A thorough analysis of the target dataset is the first critical step. This includes understanding the data types (numerical, categorical, time series, image, etc.), the distribution of each feature, the percentage of missing data per feature and overall, and, importantly, the likely missingness mechanism (MCAR, MAR, or MNAR).6 The nature of the data and its missingness will heavily influence the choice of both the base imputation strategy and the specific transfer learning approach.

Step 2: Select Source Domain/Model

The success of transfer learning hinges on the relevance of the source domain or pre-trained model to the target imputation task. The goal is to identify a source that has learned features or patterns transferable to the target data. This could be a large, diverse dataset of a similar data type (e.g., ImageNet for image inpainting, a comprehensive EHR corpus for clinical data imputation, or a collection of diverse time series for a model like UniTS). Similarity between the source and target is paramount to avoid or mitigate negative transfer.9

Step 3: Choose a Transfer Learning Strategy

Several TL strategies can be adapted for imputation:

• Feature Extraction: Use a pre-trained model (e.g., VGG16 for images, BERT for text or sequences) as a fixed feature extractor.⁸ The features extracted from the observed parts of the data can then be used by another model (e.g., a simpler regression model or another neural network) to predict the missing values.
• Fine-tuning: This is a common approach where a pre-trained model (e.g., an autoencoder, an LLM, or a specialized imputation model) is further trained on the target dataset.¹

• One must decide which layers of the pre-trained model to freeze (keep weights fixed) and which to unfreeze (allow weights to be updated).¹⁶ Often, earlier layers capturing general features are frozen, while later, more task-specific layers are fine-tuned.
• For very large models like LLMs, Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) methods such as LoRA are preferred to reduce the number of trainable parameters and computational cost.¹⁸
• Domain Adaptation: If there’s a significant distributional shift between the source and target domains, explicit domain adaptation techniques might be necessary to align the feature spaces or model behaviors.⁹

Step 4: Data Preprocessing for TL

The target data must be preprocessed to match the input requirements of the chosen pre-trained model. This can include:

• Resizing images to the expected dimensions (e.g., 224x224x3 for VGG16).⁸
• Tokenizing text or sequence data for LLMs or Transformer-based models.²³
• Normalizing or standardizing numerical features.
• Data augmentation techniques can be applied if the target dataset is very small to increase its effective size and reduce overfitting.²⁶

Step 5: Training/Adaptation Process

The model adaptation phase involves training the selected components on the target data.

• Loss Function: Define an appropriate loss function. For imputation, this is typically a reconstruction loss (e.g., Mean Squared Error for numerical data, Cross-Entropy for categorical data) that measures the difference between the imputed values and the true (artificially masked or originally observed) values. If using GANs, an adversarial loss will also be part of the objective. If the imputation is part of an end-to-end pipeline for a downstream task, the loss might be related to that task’s performance.
• Hyperparameters: Set crucial hyperparameters such as learning rate, batch size, and number of training epochs.²⁶ Learning rate scheduling (e.g., gradually decreasing the learning rate during training) can be important for stable convergence, especially during fine-tuning.²⁶

Step 6: Evaluation

Thorough evaluation is essential to assess the effectiveness of the TL-based imputation.

• Use a combination of imputation quality metrics (e.g., RMSE, MAE for numerical; F1-score for categorical; JSDist for distributional similarity) and assess the impact on downstream task performance.⁶
• Always validate on a held-out test set that was not used during training or fine-tuning. If the dataset size permits, use cross-validation for more robust performance estimates.⁶
• For image inpainting, visual inspection of the inpainted regions is crucial.⁶ For time series, plotting the imputed series against any available ground truth is helpful.

An example workflow for transfer learning in image inpainting might involve: defining the model architecture (e.g., a U-Net with a pre-trained encoder), finding an optimal initial learning rate, implementing a learning rate schedule, augmenting the training images, applying necessary transformations (like mean subtraction for normalization), potentially testing on a smaller subset of data first, fitting the model to the training data, testing the model on random images, and visualizing learned kernels or feature maps to validate if the training has been successful.²⁶

A practical tip for efficiency, especially when fine-tuning only the last few layers of a large pre-trained model, is to pre-compute and store the embeddings (outputs of the frozen layers) for all training samples.⁴⁰ This avoids repeatedly passing data through the large frozen part of the network during each training epoch, significantly speeding up the fine-tuning process.

V. Challenges, Open Problems, and Future Directions

Despite the significant progress and promise of transfer learning for data imputation, several challenges persist, and numerous open problems offer fertile ground for future research.

A. Mitigating Negative Transfer

Negative transfer is arguably one of the most critical challenges in applying transfer learning. It occurs when the knowledge transferred from a source domain or task actually degrades the performance on the target task, rather than improving it.⁹ This phenomenon undermines the very premise of TL and can lead to worse results than training a model from scratch on the target data alone.

The causes of negative transfer are multifaceted. A primary cause is domain dissimilarity, where the source and target domains are too different in terms of data distributions, feature spaces, or underlying data generating processes.⁹ Another significant factor is task conflict, where the objectives or inherent characteristics of the source and target tasks are contradictory or misaligned.³⁹ For instance, features learned for a classification task in the source domain might not be optimal, or could even be misleading, for an imputation task in the target domain if the underlying relationships they capture are irrelevant or detrimental to estimating missing values. This implies that negative transfer is not merely a surface-level issue of domain mismatch but can stem from deeper, more fundamental incompatibilities between the knowledge learned in the source and the requirements of the target.

Several strategies are being researched and applied to mitigate negative transfer:

• Careful Source Domain/Model Selection: This is a crucial first step. The use of similarity functions (e.g., Maximum Mean Discrepancy (MMD), Central Moment Discrepancy (CMD), Correlation Alignment (CORAL), Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) for time series) plays a key role in quantifying the relatedness between source and target domains, thereby guiding the selection of more appropriate sources.⁹ However, the effectiveness of existing similarity functions, especially in the context of transfer learning for time series data, remains an area of active research. Enhancements like using Gramian Angular Field (GAF) transformations have been proposed to improve similarity assessment for time series by better capturing their temporal and angular structures.⁹
• Alignment Methods: To address task conflicts, various alignment methods aim to create better-aligned representations or gradients between the source and target tasks.⁴¹ This might involve transforming the learned feature representations from the source model or guiding the fine-tuning process so that the transferred knowledge becomes beneficial rather than harmful.
• Partial Transfer Learning: Instead of transferring the entire pre-trained model or all learned knowledge, partial transfer learning selectively transfers only the most relevant or common components.³² This can help avoid transferring mismatched or detrimental knowledge, thereby reducing the risk of negative transfer.
• Regularization Techniques: Applying appropriate regularization during the fine-tuning process can help prevent the model from catastrophically forgetting useful knowledge from the source domain while adapting to the target data, or prevent overfitting if the target dataset is small.¹⁰
• Sample-Efficient Transfer Learning Algorithms: Research is also exploring algorithms that can achieve effective transfer and mitigate negative transfer even with limited training data or alignment data in the target domain.⁴¹

Addressing negative transfer effectively may require more than simple fine-tuning; it often necessitates sophisticated techniques for selective knowledge transfer, representation alignment, or careful model design that can discern and utilize only the beneficial aspects of pre-trained knowledge.

B. Scalability, Efficiency, and Real-World Deployment

The practical application of transfer learning for imputation faces challenges related to computational resources and deployment.

• Computational Cost of Large Models: Training and fine-tuning large foundational models, such as LLMs and extensive Transformer architectures, can be extremely computationally intensive, requiring significant GPU resources and time.¹ While PEFT methods like LoRA offer substantial reductions in trainable parameters, the underlying size of these models still presents a barrier for many researchers and practitioners with limited computational budgets.
• Scalable Imputation for Big Data and Streaming Data: There is a growing need for imputation methods, including TL-based ones, that can efficiently scale to handle massive datasets and real-time streaming data.² This may involve developing distributed algorithms or leveraging big data processing frameworks like Apache Spark and Hadoop.
• Overall Efficiency of TL Pipelines: While transfer learning can reduce the data requirements for the target task, the initial pre-training phase on the source domain is often very costly. The end-to-end efficiency of the entire TL pipeline, from pre-training to fine-tuning and inference, needs careful consideration.
• Deployment Challenges: Transitioning TL-based imputation models from research prototypes to robust, reliable, and maintainable systems for real-world deployment is a significant hurdle, especially in critical domains like healthcare where errors can have severe consequences.⁴ Research has explored using TL to optimize imputation time and handle large datasets, for example, in industrial applications like bearing fault diagnosis by learning an optimal imputation range from a learner dataset.³¹

C. Interpretability, Explainability, and Trustworthiness

The “black-box” nature of many advanced deep learning models, including those used in transfer learning, poses a significant challenge to their adoption, particularly in high-stakes fields where understanding the model’s decision-making process is crucial.

• Need for Interpretable Imputation: Many sophisticated imputation models, especially deep neural networks, provide little insight into why a particular value was imputed.¹⁴ This lack of transparency can be a major barrier. For instance, studies involving clinicians have revealed that while they value interpretable machine learning (IML) models, common imputation techniques like mean imputation often conflict with their clinical intuition.⁴³ Clinicians tend to prefer models that can natively handle missing values or use imputation strategies that align better with their domain knowledge and experience. Some clinicians might even prefer worst-case imputation in certain risk assessment scenarios to avoid underestimation, while others express concerns that any imputation could skew the conceptual basis of clinical scores.⁴³ This highlights a disconnect: imputation methods that are statistically sound or yield high predictive accuracy may produce imputed values that are counter-intuitive or unhelpful to domain experts who rely on observed features and their medical expertise. Transfer learning models, often pre-trained on vast and potentially different data distributions, can exacerbate this challenge by introducing imputations that are even more difficult to trace back or justify within the specific context of the target data.
• Enhancing Model Interpretability: Efforts are underway to develop more interpretable imputation models. For example, combining physics-informed learning with Denoising Autoencoders for building data imputation aims to enhance inherent model interpretability by making the learned coefficients physically meaningful.¹⁴
• Impact of Imputation on Explainability Methods (XAI): The choice of imputation method can significantly influence the outputs of XAI techniques like SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations), which are used to explain the predictions of complex models.⁴⁵ If imputed values are biased or do not reflect the true underlying data structure, the explanations derived from models using these imputed values can also be misleading. The interaction between imputation strategies and XAI methods is an area that requires further investigation.

D. Addressing Diverse Missingness Mechanisms and Data Heterogeneity

The performance and reliability of imputation methods, including TL-based ones, are heavily influenced by the underlying missingness mechanism and the heterogeneity of the data.

• Handling MNAR: Missing Not At Random (MNAR) remains one of the most difficult missingness mechanisms to address because the probability of missingness depends on the unobserved values themselves.¹ While deep learning models show promise, the identifiability of generative models under MNAR conditions is often not guaranteed. The DMM framework is a notable attempt to tackle this by explicitly modeling the MNAR process.¹²
• Data Heterogeneity in Multi-Omics/Multi-View Data: Modern datasets often comprise multiple views or modalities (e.g., integrating genomic, proteomic, and clinical data, or various sensor inputs in an IoT system). Imputing missing values across such diverse data types, each with distinct characteristics and biological or physical roles, is highly complex.¹ A single, monolithic deep learning framework may not be optimal for all data types. However, emerging paradigms like LLMs show potential for developing unified frameworks capable of integrating and reasoning over heterogeneous data.¹
• Influence of Dataset Characteristics: The choice of imputation model and the success of transfer learning adaptations are strongly dependent on specific dataset characteristics, including the patterns of missingness, feature distributions, data types, and sample size.⁵ TL strategies must be carefully chosen and adapted to account for these variations to be effective.

E. Emerging Research Frontiers

The field of transfer learning for data imputation is dynamic, with several exciting research frontiers emerging:

• Federated Transfer Learning for Privacy-Preserving Imputation: This combines the principles of transfer learning with federated learning, enabling models to be trained collaboratively across multiple decentralized datasets (e.g., different hospitals) without sharing raw patient data.² This approach is crucial for applications where data privacy and security are paramount.
• Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Imputation Strategies: Using reinforcement learning (RL) to develop imputation policies that can dynamically learn and adapt their strategies based on the observed data characteristics, the context of missingness, and feedback from imputation quality or downstream task performance.²
• Continued Focus on Transfer Learning for Low-Resource Settings: A core strength of TL is its ability to improve performance when target data is scarce.² Research will continue to refine TL techniques specifically for such scenarios in imputation.
• Causal Inference in Imputation: Integrating principles of causal inference to better understand and model the missingness mechanisms and the data generation processes.¹² This can lead to more robust and less biased imputation, as exemplified by the DMM framework’s causal view.
• Ethical AI in Imputation: There is a growing emphasis on addressing the ethical implications of data imputation, including potential biases introduced or exacerbated by imputation methods, fairness across different demographic groups, transparency of the imputation process, and overall data integrity.² It is critical to ensure that imputation practices do not reinforce existing societal inequalities or lead to harmful or discriminatory outcomes, especially in sensitive applications.
• Reproducibility and Cost in Deep Learning Imputation: Addressing the challenges related to the reproducibility of results from complex deep learning models (due to factors like stochastic gradient descent and hyperparameter sensitivity) and the high computational cost associated with training large models from scratch.¹ The use of pre-trained models through transfer learning can partially alleviate the “from scratch” training cost, but robust benchmarking and open science practices are needed for reproducibility.

Table 4 summarizes the major challenges in transfer learning for data imputation and points towards current or potential mitigation approaches.

Table 4: Major Challenges in Transfer Learning for Data Imputation and Mitigation Approaches

This table consolidates the primary obstacles in the field and links them to ongoing research efforts, offering a structured perspective on current pain points and future research avenues.

VI. Conclusion and Strategic Recommendations

The integration of transfer learning into the domain of data imputation has demonstrably advanced the ability to handle missing data across a diverse array of applications and data types. From adapting pre-trained Convolutional Neural Networks for image inpainting and creatively transformed tabular data, and Recurrent Neural Networks for clinical time series, to the sophisticated fine-tuning of large foundational models like Large Language Models and unified time series models such as UniTS, TL has shown considerable success. It has proven particularly valuable in tackling complex data structures found in Electronic Health Records, dynamic time series, high-dimensional omics data, and challenging scenarios involving data sparsity or specific missingness mechanisms.

Several key insights and overarching themes emerge from this review. There is a clear trend towards leveraging the power of large pre-trained models, yet this is often balanced by the practical need for simpler, computationally efficient methods, especially where classical techniques or straightforward TL adaptations show competitive performance. The critical importance of robust evaluation methodologies that extend beyond simple reconstruction error metrics like RMSE is increasingly recognized; a focus on preserving distributional properties of the data and, crucially, assessing the impact of imputation on downstream analytical tasks is paramount for practical utility. The persistent challenge of negative transfer underscores the necessity for sophisticated source selection, domain adaptation, and selective knowledge transfer strategies. Furthermore, there is a growing and vital demand for interpretable and trustworthy imputation methods, particularly in sensitive domains like healthcare, where “black-box” solutions can hinder adoption and trust.

Based on this comprehensive analysis, the following actionable recommendations are proposed:

For Researchers:

1. Develop Specialized TL Architectures and Fine-Tuning Techniques: Focus on creating novel transfer learning architectures and fine-tuning methodologies that are specifically designed for the nuances of data imputation tasks. This includes considering diverse data types (tabular, time series, graph, image, multi-modal) and explicitly addressing various missingness patterns and mechanisms.
2. Explore Hybrid Approaches: Investigate hybrid models that synergistically combine the strengths of transfer learning (e.g., powerful feature representations from pre-trained models) with domain-specific knowledge, causal inference principles, or the robustness of classical statistical methods.
3. Advance Negative Transfer Mitigation: Intensify research into more robust and automated methods for quantifying source-target similarity in the context of imputation tasks. Develop advanced techniques for detecting, preventing, and mitigating negative transfer, potentially through adaptive learning or more refined partial transfer strategies.
4. Prioritize Interpretable Transfer Learning: Actively pursue research into interpretable transfer learning for imputation. This could involve designing inherently interpretable TL models, developing post-hoc explanation methods tailored for TL-based imputation, or creating frameworks that allow domain experts to interact with and understand the imputation process.
5. Establish Standardized Benchmarks: Contribute to the development and adoption of standardized benchmarks, datasets, and evaluation protocols specifically for transfer learning-based imputation methods. This will facilitate fairer comparisons and accelerate progress in the field.

For Practitioners:

1. Conduct Thorough Data and Missingness Assessment: Before selecting a TL-based imputation strategy, meticulously analyze the characteristics of the target data (type, volume, distribution) and the nature of the missingness (percentage, patterns, likely mechanism).
2. Adopt a Pragmatic Approach to Model Complexity: Consider starting with simpler transfer learning adaptations or well-established imputation models before committing to highly complex foundational models, especially if data availability, computational resources, or interpretability requirements are constraints.
3. Leverage Open-Source Resources Judiciously: Utilize available open-source libraries and pre-trained models, but be prepared for careful hyperparameter tuning, model selection, and validation specific to the target imputation task.
4. Employ Comprehensive Evaluation: Evaluate imputation performance not solely on reconstruction accuracy metrics like RMSE. Assess the preservation of data distributions, the plausibility of imputed values (potentially with domain expert input), and, most importantly, the impact of imputation on the performance and reliability of downstream analytical goals.
5. Monitor for Negative Transfer: Be vigilant about the potential for negative transfer. Implement strategies to detect if the TL approach is harming performance compared to simpler baselines or no imputation, and be prepared to adjust the strategy or select a different source model if necessary.

In conclusion, the application of transfer learning to data imputation is a vibrant and rapidly evolving field. Future advancements will likely concentrate on developing more automated, adaptable, interpretable, and scalable transfer learning solutions. These solutions will need to seamlessly handle the inherent complexities of real-world missing data, ultimately leading to more reliable data-driven insights and decisions. The convergence of powerful foundational models with domain-specific knowledge and sophisticated adaptation techniques holds particular promise for unlocking the full potential of transfer learning in addressing the pervasive challenge of missing data.

Works cited

1. Deep Learning Methods for Omics Data Imputation – PMC, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10604785/
2. (PDF) Missing Data Imputation: A Comprehensive Review, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385726172_Missing_Data_Imputation_A_Comprehensive_Review
3. (PDF) Missing Value Imputation Methods for Electronic Health …, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368968843_Missing_value_imputation_methods_for_electronic_health_records
4. Fine-tuning – a Transfer Learning approach – arXiv, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2411.03941v1
5. (PDF) Challenges in Imputation of ICU Time-Series Data: A …, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391784904_Challenges_in_Imputation_of_ICU_Time-Series_Data_A_Comparison_of_Classical_and_Machine_Learning_Approaches
6. Imputation Of Missing Values Comprehensive & Practical Guide [Python] – Spot Intelligence, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://spotintelligence.com/2023/09/11/imputation/
7. arxiv.org, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2505.10856v1
8. Transfer learning-based hybrid VGG16-machine learning … – Frontiers, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/artificial-intelligence/articles/10.3389/frai.2025.1504281/full
9. Transfer Learning in Financial Time Series with Gramian … – arXiv, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.00378
10. Transfer Learning for Clinical Time Series Analysis Using Deep …, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8982827/
11. A Two-Stage Image Inpainting Technique for Old Photographs …, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/12/15/3221
12. Causal View of Time Series Imputation: Some Identification Results …, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.arxiv.org/pdf/2505.07180
13. A Benchmark for Data Imputation Methods – Frontiers, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/big-data/articles/10.3389/fdata.2021.693674/full
14. Opening the Black Box: Towards inherently interpretable energy data imputation models using building physics insight – arXiv, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2311.16632v2
15. (PDF) Flexible imputation toolkit for electronic health records, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391841611_Flexible_imputation_toolkit_for_electronic_health_records
16. Fine-tuning – a Transfer Learning approach – arXiv, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2411.03941
17. [2505.10856] ImputeINR: Time Series Imputation via Implicit Neural Representations for Disease Diagnosis with Missing Data – arXiv, accessed on June 7, 2025, http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.10856
18. Transfer Learning with Foundational Models for Time Series Forecasting using Low-Rank Adaptations – arXiv, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2410.11539v3
19. Transfer Learning with Foundational Models for Time Series Forecasting using Low-Rank Adaptations – arXiv, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2410.11539v1
20. mims-harvard/UniTS: A unified multi-task time series model. – GitHub, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://github.com/mims-harvard/UniTS
21. UniTS: A Unified Multi-Task Time Series Model | OpenReview, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://openreview.net/forum?id=nBOdYBptWW&referrer=%5Bthe%20profile%20of%20Owen%20Queen%5D(%2Fprofile%3Fid%3D~Owen_Queen1)
22. (PDF) Imputation Strategies in Time Series Based on Language …, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384913395_Imputation_Strategies_in_Time_Series_Based_on_Language_Models
23. Large Language Models for Time Series: A Survey – IJCAI, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.ijcai.org/proceedings/2024/0921.pdf
24. Global Graph Propagation with Hierarchical Information Transfer for …, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.arxiv.org/pdf/2502.19291
25. mllm-ts/Awesome-Multimodal-LLMs-Time-Series: A curated … – GitHub, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://github.com/mllm-ts/Awesome-Multimodal-LLMs-Time-Series
26. Computer Vision: A Case Study- Transfer Learning – Great Learning, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.mygreatlearning.com/blog/computer-vision-a-case-study-transfer-learning/
27. Image Inpainting Technique Incorporating Edge Prior and Attention Mechanism, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.techscience.com/cmc/v78n1/55383/html
28. Facial image inpainting for big data using an effective attention mechanism and a convolutional neural network – PubMed Central, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9877444/
29. Training and Fine-Tuning Vision Transformers – Marqo, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.marqo.ai/course/training-and-fine-tuning-vision-transformers
30. Fine-Tuning LLMs: A Guide With Examples – DataCamp, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.datacamp.com/tutorial/fine-tuning-large-language-models
31. Transfer Learning Approach Applied to Data Imputation – OSF, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://osf.io/jd5th/download
32. Partial transfer learning network for data imputation and soft sensor under various operation conditions | Request PDF – ResearchGate, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375765272_Partial_transfer_learning_network_for_data_imputation_and_soft_sensor_under_various_operation_conditions
33. Evaluation methodology for deep learning imputation models – PMC, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9791304/
34. TsLu1s/mlimputer: MLimputer: Missing Data Imputation … – GitHub, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://github.com/TsLu1s/mlimputer
35. Zero-shot Time Series Forecasting with TabPFN (work accepted at NeurIPS 2024 TRL and TSALM workshops) – GitHub, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://github.com/PriorLabs/tabpfn-time-series
36. Top 10 Open Source AI Libraries in 2025 | GeeksforGeeks, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/top-open-source-ai-libraries/
37. 10 Best Libraries for Machine Learning with Examples – Analytics Vidhya, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2024/01/best-libraries-for-machine-learning-explained/
38. Practical Guide to Implementing Mean Imputation in Data Science, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/practical-guide-implementing-mean-imputation-data-science
39. Multitask prediction of organ dysfunction in the intensive care unit using sequential subnetwork routing | Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association | Oxford Academic, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/jamia/article/28/9/1936/6307184
40. *FULL GUIDE* Transfer Learning From 0 to Hero in 15 min – YouTube, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxpG7CXKfn4
41. Mitigating Negative Transfer for Better Generalization and Efficiency …, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://kilthub.cmu.edu/articles/thesis/Mitigating_Negative_Transfer_for_Better_Generalization_and_Efficiency_in_Transfer_Learning/21728726
42. A Context-Aware Approach for Enhancing Data Imputation with Pre-trained Language Models – arXiv, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2405.17712v2
43. Expert Study on Interpretable Machine Learning Models with Missing Data – arXiv, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2411.09591v1
44. Handling missing values in clinical machine learning: \titlebreakInsights from an expert study, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2411.09591v2
45. Explainability of Machine Learning Models under Missing Data – arXiv, accessed on June 7, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2407.00411v3