Authors: Jiageng Wen, Shengjie Zhao, Bing Li, Jiafeng Huang, Kenan Ye, Hao Deng
Organizations: Shanghai Research Institute for Intelligent Autonomous Systems, Tongji University · School of Computer Science and Technology, Tongji University · School of Mechatronic Engineering and Automation, Shanghai University
Collaborative perception integrates multi-agent perspectives to enhance the sensing range and overcome occlusion issues. While existing multimodal approaches leverage complementary sensors to improve performance, they are highly prone to failure--especially when a key sensor like LiDAR is unavailable. The root cause is that feature fusion leads to semantic mismatches between single-modality features and the downstream modules. This paper addresses this challenge for the first time in the field of collaborative perception, introducing Single-Modality-Operable Multimodal Collaborative Perception (SiMO). By adopting the proposed Length-Adaptive Multi-Modal Fusion (LAMMA), SiMO can adaptively handle remaining modal features during modal failures while maintaining consistency of the semantic space. Additionally, leveraging the innovative "Pretrain-Align-Fuse-RD" training strategy, SiMO addresses the issue of modality competition--generally overlooked by existing methods--ensuring the independence of each individual modality branch. Experiments demonstrate that SiMO effectively aligns multimodal features while simultaneously preserving modality-specific features, enabling it to maintain optimal performance across all individual modalities. The implementation details can be found in https://github.com/dempsey-wen/SiMO.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: a) Existing methods perform like a series circuit and fail with any modal failure, while ours performs like a parallel circuit working with any effective branch. b) The common feature fusion methods cause space shifts, rendering unfused features not fitting to the downstream task heads. c) Aligning features before fusion keeps the consistency among unfused, fused and multi-agent features.
Figure 2: a) The overview of SiMO. b) LAMMA adaptively downgrades to Self-Attention fusion to keep consistent feature processing when modal failure happens. c) SiMO conducts balanced multimodal learning to keep modality-specific features for branch independence.
Figure 3: The training process of SiMO. (1) Load pretrained feature extractors. (2) Train each aligner with the extractor frozen. (3) Train LAMMA with two-modal input, freezing aligners and task heads (w/o RD). (4) Fine-tune LAMMA with RD to adapt modal failure.
Method
Modality
AP@30
AP@50
AP@70
BM2CP ( Zhao et al., 2023 )
L+C
91.69
91.45
86.87
L
91.55
91.31
86.80
C
0
0
0
BEVFusion ( Liu et al., 2023 )
L+C (RD)
95.18
94.21
81.09
L (RD)
93.27
91.99
71.80
C (RD)
0
0
0
Table 1: Quantitative 3D detection performances of models (in %).
Figure 4: Comparison of SiMO-PF, BEVFusion and Pyramid Fusion (L) in varying extents of LiDAR failure.
Method
HEAL (Pyramid Fusion)
SiMO-PF
Mode
L
C
C-ego
L-ego
L+C
L
C
C-ego
L-ego
AP@30
0.98
0.68
0.85
0.96
0.98
0.97
0.81
0.89
0.97
AP@50
0.98
0.60
0.82
0.96
0.98
0.97
0.70
0.85
0.97
AP@70
0.96
0.39
0.72
0.92
0.95
0.94
0.45
0.70
0.91
Table 2: Performances in homogeneous and heterogenous modal failures. L+C: both modalities, L: only LiDAR, C: only cameras, C-ego: heterogeneous failure with camera ego (C-L-C-L-…), L-ego: heterogeneous failure with LiDAR ego (L-C-L-C-…).
Figure 5: Visualization of SiMO-PF’s and HEAL’s (Pyramid Fusion) detection results , ground truth and collaborative point clouds. (a)(b)(c) are detection visualizations with all, 15000, 5000 LiDAR points (by occluding local point clouds), and (d) is detection visualizations with only camera images. SiMO-PF detects most objects even with 5000 LiDAR points, while HEAL misses the most.
Our learning strategy
RD
LAMMA
Corresponding experiments
AP@70 (L+C/L/C)
Adaptability to modal failure
✔
✔
Naive training w/o RD
0.94/0.01/0
✗
Naive training with RD
0.11/0/0
✔
✔
SiMO w/o RD
0.95/0.26/0
✗
✔
✔
BEVFusion with RD
0.81/0.72/0
✗
✔
✔
✔
SiMO with RD
0.95/0.94/ 0.45
✔
Table 3: Ablation study shows the necessity of our learning strategy, RD and LAMMA to adapt to modal failure.
Figure 6: The t-SNE visualization for features of LAMMA.
Procrustes Disparity
BEVFusion
Before LAMMA
After LAMMA
cam vs lidar
0.8645
0.6747
0.0472
cam vs fused
0.7297
0.3886
0.0215
lidar vs fused
0.5747
0.2773
0.0064
Table 4: Procrustes analysis.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Modules
Submodules
Settings
PointPillar
Voxel Feature Encoder (VFE)
With normalization, absolute 3D coordinates, filters=64
Convolutional layer: kernel_size=3, stride=1, channel shrunk from 384 to 256
Aligner
Convnext: blocks=3, channels=256
Appendix
Table 5: Detailed SiMO-AF settings.
Stage
Training Epochs
Pretrain (lidar_attfuse)
20
Pretrain (cam_attfuse)
20
Align (SiMO-AF (L))
15
Align (SiMO-AF (C))
5
Fusion (SiMO-AF (L+C))
5
RD Fine-tune
5
Appendix
Table 6: Training stages and epochs.
Module
SiMO-PF
BEVFusion
LiDAR Encoder (encoder_m1)
768
768
Camera Encoder (encoder_m2)
14,635,796
14,635,796
LiDAR Backbone (backbone_m1)
226,176
226,176
Camera Backbone (backbone_m2)
267,136
267,136
Aligner (aligner_m2)
109,440
109,440
Multimodal Fusion (mm_fusion)
1,312,512 (LAMMA)
73,856 (Concat+Conv)
Appendix
Table 7: Parameter count and FLOPS comparison.
Figure 7: Visualization of SiMO-AF’s (the 1st row) and AttFusion’s (the 2nd row) detection results , ground truth and collaborative point clouds. (a)(b)(c) are detection visualizations with all, 15000 and 10000 LiDAR points. Typical detection errors are enlarged for analysis.
Figure 8: The visualizations of BM2CP’s features. (a) and (b) are respectively the camera and LiDAR feature before fusion, and (c) is the fused feature combining two modals.
Figure 9: The visualizations of LiDAR and camera features aligned with LAMMA and the fused feature.
Method
Modality
AP@30
AP@50
AP@70
BEVFusion ( Liu et al., 2023 )
L+C (RD)
83.56
82.30
65.45
L (RD)
75.96
74.53
53.22
C (RD)
0
0
0
HEAL ( Lu et al., 2024 ) (Pyramid Fusion)
L
94.96
94.25
89.65
C
56.99
46.72
31.71
SiMO (AttFusion)
L+C (RD)
86.95
85.20
72.09
Appendix
Table 8: 3D detection results on V2XSet of models trained with our learning strategy and RD (in %).
Method
Modality
AP@30
AP@50
AP@70
HEAL ( Lu et al., 2024 ) (Pyramid Fusion)
L
77.06
69.35
42.74
C
8.08
2.15
0.22
SiMO (Pyramid Fusion)
L+C (w/o RD)
74.56
64.51
29.31
L+C (RD)
68.07
51.82
18.84
L (RD)
66.89
52.33
19.35
C (RD)
8.60
2.24
0.26
Appendix
Table 9: 3D detection performances of SiMO on DAIR-V2X (in %).
Method
AP@30/50/70
Lidar Noise
σ=0
σ=0.1
σ=0.5
σ=1
σ=2
BEVFusion
0.95/0.94/0.81
0.95/0.94/0.81
0.94/0.93/0.79
0.93/0.92/0.77
0.77/0.76/0.55
SiMO-PF
0.98/0.98/0.95
0.98/0.97/0.92
0.92/0.90/0.73
0.81/0.78/0.55
0.71/0.67/0.43
Appendix
Table 10: AP performance with LiDAR noise.
Method
Mode
AP@30
AP@50
AP@70
AttFusion ( Xu et al., 2022c )
L
96.68
95.09
87.16
C
68.31
52.91
25.30
SiMO-AF w/o aligners
L+C
87.07
83.11
35.70
SiMO-AF naive training
L+C
96.10
94.26
78.49
SiMO-AF our training
L+C
96.51
95.26
85.10
Appendix
Table 11: The ablation study of our training method (measured in %).
Figure 10: Only features after LAMMA (3) show a high degree of mirror symmetry similarity in t-SNE analysis. Features’ distributions of BEVFusion (1) and before LAMMA (2) show no similarity.
Order
SiMO-AF (LiDAR first)
SiMO-AF (camera first)
Mode
L+C
L
C
L+C
L
C
AP@30
96.10
95.11
66.53
95.55
95.12
63.70
AP@50
94.98
94.02
49.69
94.28
93.81
47.30
AP@70
84.81
82.35
22.59
81.07
81.07
20.07
Appendix
Table 12: The effect of aligners’ training order (%).
Feature Size
AP@30
AP@50
AP@70
128*128
96.51
95.26
85.10
64*64
95.48
93.78
78.50
Appendix
Table 13: The effect of feature size on detection precisions (in %).
Setting
Homogeneous Modality
Heterogeneous Modality (L-ego)
Heterogeneous Modality (C-ego)
Modality
L+C
L
C
All
cav_0 (L)
+cav_1 (C)
+cav_2 (L)
+cav_3 (C)
+cav_4 (L)
All
cav_0 (C)
+cav_1 (L)
+cav_2 (C)
+cav_3 (L)
+cav_4 (C)
AP@30
0.98
0.97
0.81
0.97
-
0.94
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.89
-
0.88
0.92
0.95
0.89
AP@50
0.98
0.97
0.70
0.97
-
0.93
0.98
0.99
0.99
0.85
-
0.84
0.89
0.94
0.82
AP@70
0.95
0.94
0.45
0.91
-
0.83
0.95
0.96
0.96
0.70
-
0.70
0.75
0.88
0.70
Appendix
Table 14: Performance comparison with varying agents in heterogeneous modalities.
Collaborative perception empowers autonomous agents to share complementary information and overcome perception limitations. While early fusion offers more perceptual complementarity and is inherently robust to model heterogeneity, its high communication cost has limited its practical deployment, prompting most existing works to favor intermediate or late fusion. To address this, we propose a communication-efficient early Collaborative perception framework that incorporates LiDAR Completion to restore scene completeness under sparse transmission, dubbed as CoLC. Specifically, the CoLC integrates three complementary designs. First, each neighbor agent applies Foreground-Aware Point Sampling (FAPS) to selectively transmit informative points that retain essential structural and contextual cues under bandwidth constraints. The ego agent then employs Completion-Enhanced Early Fusion (CEEF) to reconstruct dense pillars from the received sparse inputs and adaptively fuse them with its own observations, thereby restoring spatial completeness. Finally, the Dense-Guided Dual Alignment (DGDA) strategy enforces semantic and geometric consistency between the enhanced and dense pillars during training, ensuring consistent and robust feature learning. Experiments on both simulated and real-world datasets demonstrate that CoLC achieves superior perception-communication trade-offs and remains robust under heterogeneous model settings. The code is available at https://github.com/CatOneTwo/CoLC.
Yushan Han, Hui Zhang, Qiming Xia +2
Key Laboratory of Big Data & Artificial Intelligence in Transportation, Ministry of Education · School of Computer Science and Technology, Beijing Jiaotong University · Xiamen University
Collaborative perception enhances environment understanding through multi-agent information sharing, but its performance in real-world scenarios is constrained by heterogeneous sensor modalities and model architectures. Recent protocol-based two-stage methods alleviate this problem by mapping heterogeneous features into a shared protocol space; however, independently trained modality-specific converters often generate modality-specific pseudo-protocol distributions, leading to semantic inconsistency and error accumulation, which is particularly pronounced in scenarios with large modality discrepancies. To address this issue, we propose CauseCollab, a causal unified and modality-agnostic network. CauseCollab formulates representation learning in the protocol space from a causal perspective, explicitly disentangling semantic factors from modality-specific statistical confounders via causal metric learning. Meanwhile, CauseCollab adopts context-guided Unified Converter for heterogeneous modalities to ensure cross-modal semantic consistency. In addition, integrating new modalities only requires training adapters with minimal parameters. Extensive experiments on the OPV2V and DAIR-V2X datasets demonstrate that CauseCollab achieves state-of-the-art performance, with more significant gains in scenarios involving large modality gaps.
Weize Li, Yang Li, Quan Yuan +3
State Key Laboratory of Networking and Switching Technology, Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing, China.
Collaborative perception leverages data exchange among multiple agents to enhance overall perception capabilities. However, heterogeneity across agents introduces domain gaps that hinder collaboration, and this is further exacerbated by an underexplored issue: modality isolation. It arises when multiple agents with different modalities never co-occur in any training data frame, enlarging cross-modal domain gaps. Existing alignment methods rely on supervision from spatially overlapping observations, thus fail to handle modality isolation. To address this challenge, we propose CodeAlign, the first efficient, co-occurrence-free alignment framework that smoothly aligns modalities via cross-modal feature-code-feature(FCF) translation. The key idea is to explicitly identify the representation consistency through codebook, and directly learn mappings between modality-specific feature spaces, thereby eliminating the need for spatial correspondence. Codebooks regularize feature spaces into code spaces, providing compact yet expressive representations. With a prepared code space for each modality, CodeAlign learns FCF translations that map features to the corresponding codes of other modalities, which are then decoded back into features in the target code space, enabling effective alignment. Experiments show that, when integrating three modalities, CodeAlign requires only 8% of the training parameters of prior alignment methods, reduces communication load by 1024x, and achieves state-of-the-art perception performance on both OPV2V and DAIR-V2X dataset. Code will be released on https://github.com/cxliu0314/CodeAlign.
Changxing Liu, Zichen Chao, Siheng Chen
Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Nanjing University of Science and Technology