In autonomous driving, multi-agent collaborative perception enhances sensing capabilities by enabling agents to share perceptual data. A key challenge lies in handling {\em heterogeneous} features from agents equipped with different sensing modalities or model architectures, which complicates data fusion. Existing approaches often require retraining encoders or designing interpreter modules for pairwise feature alignment, but these solutions are not scalable in practice. To address this, we propose {\em GT-Space}, a flexible and scalable collaborative perception framework for heterogeneous agents. GT-Space constructs a common feature space from ground-truth labels, providing a unified reference for feature alignment. With this shared space, agents only need a single adapter module to project their features, eliminating the need for pairwise interactions with other agents. Furthermore, we design a fusion network trained with contrastive losses across diverse modality combinations. Extensive experiments on simulation datasets (OPV2V and V2XSet) and a real-world dataset (RCooper) demonstrate that GT-Space consistently outperforms baselines in detection accuracy while delivering robust performance. Our code will be released at https://github.com/KingScar/GT-Space.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of heterogeneous collaborative strategies. (a) Retraining of the encoders: the fusion network is frozen while the local encoder (denoted as E) is retrained to adapt to data integration; (b) Interpreter-based alignment: local encoder and detection head (denoted as D) are frozen, the interpreter can project the received features into the ego’s feature space; (c) Our method does not require any re-training of encoders or heads, and utilizes a modality-agnostic fusion module to integrate heterogeneous modalities using a ground-truth derived common feature space for alignment.
Figure 2: The framework of GT-Space. Heterogeneous features undergo domain conversion before being input into the fusion network. The ground truth object bounding box labels are leveraged to generate a common feature space. Heterogeneous features from different agents are projected into the common feature space for alignment and fusion.
Figure 3: Feature alignment in GT-Space. (a) Ground truth features generation: The object bounding box labels are encoded and mapped onto the BEV map; (b) Multi-modal transformer: Each modality is mapped into a common feature space by a specific projector; (c) Combinatorial contrastive learning: M1, M2, and M3 denote three different modalities, and computing contrastive loss over all pairs of these modalities enhances the model’s general feature extraction ability; (d) Object-level alignment: Contrastive learning pulls features of the same object closer and pushes those of different objects apart.
Agent
Agent 1
Agent 2
Agent 3
Agent 4
Carrier
Vehicle
Infrastructure / Vehicle
Vehicle
Vehicle
Sensor
LiDAR
LiDAR
Camera
Camera
Model
SECOND ( Yan et al., 2018 )
PointPillar ( Lang et al., 2019 )
EfficientNet ( Tan and Le, 2019 )
ResNet50 ( He et al., 2016 )
Table 1: Settings of heterogeneous agents in the experiments.
Dataset
Method
AP@50↑
AP@70↑
Ego A1, collaborates with
A2
A3
A4
A2
A3
A4
OPV2V
Non-collaboration
0.738
0.738
0.738
0.614
0.614
0.614
Late fusion
0.821
0.772
0.766
0.680
0.615
0.613
HM-ViT ( Xiang et al., 2023 )
0.857
0.814
0.807
0.731
0.646
0.652
PnPDA ( Luo et al., 2024 )
0.878
0.809
0.802
0.792
0.651
0.653
HEAL ( Lu et al., 2024 )
0.887
0.827
0.823
0.801
0.724
0.728
Table 2: Comparison of fusion performance for different heterogeneous modality pairs using AP@50 and AP@70 metrics. A1, A2, A3 and A4 refer to agent 1, agent 2, agent 3 and agent 4, respectively.
Dataset
Method
AP@50↑
AP@70↑
A1
A2
A3
A4
A1
A2
A3
A4
OPV2V
Non-collaboration
0.738
0.744
0.402
0.396
0.614
0.620
0.354
0.337
Late fusion
0.818
0.818
0.818
0.818
0.690
0.690
0.690
0.690
HM-ViT ( Xiang et al., 2023 )
0.852
0.853
0.835
0.837
0.756
0.752
0.722
0.725
PnPDA ( Luo et al., 2024 )
0.861
0.864
0.828
0.833
0.798
0.794
0.719
0.716
HEAL ( Lu et al., 2024 )
0.894
0.889
0.842
0.843
0.806
0.801
0.726
0.733
Table 3: Perception performance of different agents in multi-agent scenarios.
Figure 4: Performance of under-performing agents on OPV2V. The left column represents Agent 1, and the right column Agent 3. The horizontal axis represents performance without collaboration, while the vertical axis represents collaboration.
Figure 5: Robust Experiment to pose error and communication latency.
Configurations
OPV2V
V2XSet
mAP@50
mAP@70
mAP@50
mAP@70
w/o-GT feature
0.868
0.795
0.830
0.782
w/o-projector
0.791
0.683
0.716
0.604
w/o-contrastive loss
0.845
0.721
0.823
0.709
Full version
0.892
0.814
0.873
0.806
Table 4: Effect of each design component in the model.
Figure 6: Visualization of BEV features before and after fusion. (a) Features before fusion of A2 (PointPillar); (b) Enhanced features after fusion.
Figure 7: Visualization of (a) Ground truth feature, (b) projected camera feature Φcam(Fcam) and (c) projected LiDAR feature Φlidar(Flidar) .
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Symbol
Meaning
Fa
Feature map from a -th agent.
FGT
Ground truth feature map.
Bi
i -th bounding box in a frame.
βi
Encoded representation of Bi
Uc
The feature of the c -th cell
Uni
The feature of the n -th cell of box Bi
Appendix
Table 5: Summary of Symbols.
Figure 8: (a) End-to-end training; (b) Late fusion; (c) Encoder re-training; (d) Interpreter-based method; (e)Adapter-Reverter method; (f) GT-Space(Ours). Blue indicates frozen modules, while red represents modules that are updated during training.
Method
Encoding (ms)
Fusion (ms)
Detection (ms)
HM-ViT ( Xiang et al., 2023 )
7.08
1.38
0.95
PnPDA ( Luo et al., 2024 )
7.08
1.41
0.98
Hetecooper ( Shao et al., 2024 )
7.08
1.47
0.97
HEAL ( Lu et al., 2024 )
7.08
1.54
0.95
STAMP ( Gao et al., 2025 )
7.08
1.52
0.94
GT-Space
7.08
1.48
0.97
Appendix
Table 6: System delays
Method
A1
A2
A3
A4
No fusion
0.441
0.438
0.231
0.228
HM-ViT ( Xiang et al., 2023 )
0.458
0.467
0.294
0.287
PnPDA ( Luo et al., 2024 )
0.463
0.468
0.321
0.330
Hetecooper ( Shao et al., 2024 )
0.471
0.465
0.319
0.324
HEAL ( Lu et al., 2024 )
0.478
0.473
0.343
0.346
STAMP ( Gao et al., 2025 )
0.473
0.469
0.338
0.342
Appendix
Table 7: Performance on RCooper
Method
AMOTA
AMOTP
No fusion
0.083
0.227
HM-ViT ( Xiang et al., 2023 )
0.224
0.354
PnPDA ( Luo et al., 2024 )
0.228
0.357
Hetecooper ( Shao et al., 2024 )
0.227
0.361
HEAL ( Lu et al., 2024 )
0.232
0.364
STAMP ( Gao et al., 2025 )
0.231
0.359
Appendix
Table 8: Performance of tracking task on RCooper
Method (Based on A1, A2, Add)
Base
+ A3
+ A4
PnPDA ( Luo et al., 2024 )
0.878
0.857
0.864
HEAL ( Lu et al., 2024 )
0.887
0.891
0.895
STAMP ( Gao et al., 2025 )
0.876
0.863
0.862
GT-Space
0.891
0.892
0.897
Appendix
Table 9: Newly adding agents.
Agent
Agent 1
Agent 2
Agent 3
Agent 4
Carrier
Vehicle
Infrastructure / Vehicle
Vehicle
Vehicle
Sensor
LiDAR
LiDAR
Camera
Camera
Model
SECOND ( Yan et al., 2018 )
PointPillar ( Lang et al., 2019 )
EfficientNet ( Tan and Le, 2019 )
ResNet50 ( He et al., 2016 )
Encoder Param. (M)
3.79
0.87
56.85
6.88
Agent
Agent 5
Agent 6
Agent 7
Agent 8
Carrier
Vehicle
Vehicle
Vehicle
Vehicle
Appendix
Table 10: Settings of heterogeneous agents in the experiments.
Figure 9: Training efficiency comparison for the different number of newly adding agents.
Dataset
Method
A1
A2
A3
A4
V2XSet
Late fusion
0.798
0.798
0.798
0.798
HM-ViT ( Xiang et al., 2023 )
0.809
0.793
0.792
0.788
PnPDA ( Luo et al., 2024 )
0.819
0.804
0.801
0.790
HEAL ( Lu et al., 2024 )
0.844
0.842
0.818
0.822
Hetecooper ( Shao et al., 2024 )
0.835
0.821
0.810
0.803
STAMP ( Gao et al., 2025 )
0.842
0.829
0.801
0.803
Appendix
Table 11: Performance (AP50) of agent A1-A4 in V2XSet using the fusion model trained on OPV2V.
Dataset
Temperature
A1
A2
A3
A4
OPV2V
0.05
0.845
0.835
0.830
0.826
0.07
0.850
0.842
0.824
0.830
0.1
0.858
0.846
0.828
0.833
Appendix
Table 12: Performance (AP50) of models trained with different temperature parameters
Method
A1
A2
A3
A4
GT-Space
0.477
0.475
0.349
0.351
GT-Space (average)
0.481
0.482
0.350
0.354
Appendix
Table 13: Results of scale balancing
Figure 10: Visualization of collaborative perception results. We color the predicted and GT boxes.
Collaborative Perception (CP) improves autonomous systems' awareness of their surroundings by sharing sensor data, intermediate features, and detection results. In real-world deployments, however, collaborating vehicles often use heterogeneous sensors, perception models, datasets, and training domains, creating feature-space shifts that degrade downstream fusion and detection. Existing approaches typically retrain fusion and detection components or introduce modality-specific feature interpreters. These methods scale poorly to newly joining agents and often require access to proprietary metadata, raising privacy concerns. We propose HeteroPROMPT, a real-time and privacy-preserving framework for heterogeneous collaborative perception. HeteroPROMPT rapidly aligns each heterogeneous agent's features with an ego-centric unified feature space through modular prompts and lightweight learning-based tuning, while keeping agent encoders and the collaborative fusion and detection stacks frozen. Its visual prompt-based training and inference modulate Bird's Eye View (BEV) features across channels and spatial locations with low computational overhead. For metadata-free deployment, an autoencoder learns a compact unified representation and extracts modality cues from shared features, enabling real-time modality classification and routing to the appropriate HeteroPROMPT modules without exposing proprietary agent information. Experiments on the OPV2V-H and V2XSet datasets show that HeteroPROMPT improves Average Precision over state-of-the-art heterogeneous CP methods while using orders of magnitude fewer trainable parameters. This offers a scalable and practical CP solution. The proposed modality classifier also predicts the joining agent's modality from compact features with greater than 99.99 percent accuracy during deployment. Code will be available at https://github.com/arminmaleki007/HeteroPROMPT.
Armin Maleki, Hayder Radha
Electrical and Computer Engineering, Michigan State University
In collaborative perception, an agent's performance can be degraded by heterogeneity arising from differences in model architecture or training data distributions. To address this challenge, we propose HyDRA (Hybrid Domain-Aware Robust Architecture), a unified pipeline that integrates intermediate and late fusion within a domain-aware framework. We introduce a lightweight domain classifier that dynamically identifies heterogeneous agents and assigns them to the late-fusion branch. Furthermore, we propose anchor-guided pose graph optimization to mitigate localization errors inherent in late fusion, leveraging reliable detections from intermediate fusion as fixed spatial anchors. Extensive experiments demonstrate that, despite requiring no additional training, HyDRA achieves performance comparable to state-of-the-art heterogeneity-aware CP methods. Importantly, this performance is maintained as the number of collaborating agents increases, enabling zero-cost scaling without retraining.
Minwoo Song, Minhee Kang, Heejin Ahn
School of Electrical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
Collaborative perception (CP) is a promising paradigm for improving situational awareness in autonomous vehicles by overcoming the limitations of single-agent perception. However, most existing approaches assume homogeneous agents, which restricts their applicability in real-world scenarios where vehicles use diverse sensors and perception models. This heterogeneity introduces a feature domain gap that degrades detection performance. Prior works address this issue by retraining entire models/major components, or using feature interpreters for each new agent type, which is computationally expensive, compromises privacy, and may reduce single-agent accuracy. We propose Faster-HEAL, a lightweight and privacy-preserving CP framework that fine-tunes a low-rank visual prompt to align heterogeneous features with a unified feature space while leveraging pyramid fusion for robust feature aggregation. This approach reduces the trainable parameters by 94%, enabling efficient adaptation to new agents without retraining large models. Experiments on the OPV2V-H dataset show that Faster-HEAL improves detection performance by 2% over state-of-the-art methods with significantly lower computational overhead, offering a practical solution for scalable heterogeneous CP.
Armin Maleki, Hayder Radha
Electrical and Computer Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan