Organizations: University of Science, VNU-HCM, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam · Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA · Center for Environmental Intelligence, VinUniversity, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam · University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA
Camera-LiDAR detectors can continue to consume unreliable features even when both sensors remain present, synchronized, and calibrated. We introduce \emph{Boundary Feature Repair} (BFR), a frozen-host adaptation framework that learns task-supervised residual corrections at modality interfaces the detector already consumes. BFR-C repairs each camera feature level read by fusion, whereas BFR-L aligns host-conditioned LiDAR candidates to a selected boundary and routes site-wise innovations relative to the frozen anchor. Their jointly trained composition is BFR-CL. Zero-initialized per-channel scales make every variant an exact detector-level identity before optimization; only the repair modules train, while the encoders, fusion consumer, router, detection head, and host normalization statistics remain fixed. At inference, BFR requires neither clean references, corruption metadata, temporal history, nor online updates. Across the complete 20-corruption, five-severity KITTI-C grid, BFR-C reduces RCE from 14.07 to 11.92 on MVX-Net and from 14.29 to 11.00 on Focals Conv-F relative to their reproduced frozen baselines. On the latter host, BFR-L raises APcor from 73.65 to 74.48, while BFR-CL reaches 77.01 APcor and 10.46 RCE with 86.02 clean AP. On nuScenes-R, BFR-CL raises the reproduced MoME baseline's mAP robustness ratio from 80.1 to 81.4. These results establish boundary repair as a targeted retrofit for corrupted-but-present sensing without retraining the deployed detector.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Frozen-host boundary repair. BFR-C and BFR-L repair host-consumed camera and LiDAR features while the encoders, fusion consumer, router, and detection head (snowflakes) remain frozen.
Fig. 2: Boundary repair mechanisms. (a) BFR-C applies an independent project–spatial–restore residual Rl to every camera feature level consumed by the host, then gates the update with a zero-initialized channel scale γlC . (b) BFR-L aligns BEV-adapter, point-, and range-derived candidates Ba , Bp , and Br , routes their anchor-relative innovations with a learned-center heavy-tailed gate, and writes the mixture through γL . The sensor encoders remain frozen.
Corruption
LC Fusion
MVX-Net [ 2 ]
Focals Conv-F [ 16 ]
EPNet [ 14 ] †
LoGoNet [ 15 ] ∗
RoboFusion-L [ 8 ]
RoboFusion-B [ 8 ]
RoboFusion-T [ 8 ]
(repro.)
+ BFR-C
(repro.)
+ BFR-C
+ BFR-L
+ BFR-CL
None (AP clean )
82.72
85.04
88.04
87.87
87.60
78.59
79.33
85.92
85.84
86.17
86.02
Weather
Snow
34.58
51.45
85.29
84.70
84.60
27.29
37.91
34.56
54.65
38.77
54.70
Rain
36.27
55.80
86.48
85.54
84.79
43.85
48.95
41.99
61.70
46.82
62.17
Fog
44.35
67.53
85.53
84.00
84.17
63.03
68.65
45.08
61.25
47.19
60.26
S.L.
69.65
75.54
85.50
85.15
84.75
73.80
75.46
80.04
81.79
81.59
82.39
TABLE I: KITTI-C Car 3D AP 40 at moderate difficulty. BFR variants are compared with their reproduced frozen baselines; † and ∗ mark benchmark-reported and RoboFusion-author reproduced results, respectively.
Fig. 3: KITTI-C severity-2 Car examples for frozen Focals Conv-F (top) and joint BFR-CL (bottom). Black, green, and red denote ground truth, true positives, and false positives; dashed blue circles mark host misses detected by BFR-CL. Both use score ≥0.5 and center distance ≤1.5 m.
Corruption
LC Fusion
MoME [ 9 ]
BEVFusion [ 4 ] †
DeepInteraction [ 6 ] ∗
RoboFusion-L [ 8 ]
(repro.)
+ BFR-CL
None ( mAPclean )
68.45
69.90
69.91
71.19
70.65
Weather
Snow
62.84
62.36
67.12
64.00
64.72
Rain
66.13
66.48
67.58
68.63
68.22
Fog
54.10
54.79
67.01
68.50
68.06
S.L.
64.42
64.93
67.24
60.20
66.76
TABLE II: nuScenes-C mAP under common corruptions. LC-fusion results average five severities; the reproduced MoME baseline and BFR-CL use severity 2. † and ∗ mark published and author-reproduced results.
Method
Clean
Perf. ratio ( R )
LiDAR failures
Camera failures
Beam reduction 4 beams
LiDAR drop all
Limited FOV [−60,60]
Object failure rate =0.5
View drop 6 drops
Occlusion w/ obstacle
mAP
NDS
mAP
NDS
mAP
NDS
mAP
NDS
mAP
NDS
mAP
NDS
mAP
NDS
mAP
NDS
UniBEV [ 22 ] †
64.2
68.5
75.8
83.7
45.1
56.1
35.0
42.2
35.9
50.1
57.1
64.0
58.2
65.3
60.5
66.4
TransFusion [ 5 ]
66.9
70.9
54.4
66.8
–
–
0.0
0.0
20.3
45.8
34.6
53.6
61.6
67.4
65.5
70.0
MetaBEV [ 7 ]
68.0
71.5
75.4
82.5
–
57.7
39.0
42.6
–
57.7
–
67.6
63.6
69.2
–
70.0
CMT [ 17 ] †
70.3
72.9
78.4
84.4
54.9
62.2
38.3
44.7
43.9
54.0
66.7
70.4
61.7
68.1
65.0
69.8
TABLE III: nuScenes-R robustness under structured sensor failures. R is the mean corrupted-to-clean performance ratio across the displayed failures.
Gate kernel
16 corruptions
8-corruption subset
Constant
+1.10
+0.64
Softmax ( e−d2 )
+1.12
+0.68
Laplace ( e−d )
+1.19
+0.85
Polynomial tail
+1.27
+0.90
TABLE IV: Gate-kernel ablation for sparse BFR-L on Focals Conv-F. Entries are severity-2 mean Δ AP 40 relative to the reproduced frozen host.
Model / route
Params (M)
Latency (ms)
FPS
VRAM (MiB)
Plug-in GFLOPs
RoboFusion
RoboFusion-L [ 8 ]
97.54
–
3.1
–
–
RoboFusion-B [ 8 ]
81.01
–
3.5
–
–
RoboFusion-T [ 8 ]
13.94
–
6.0
–
–
Boundary Feature Repair
Focals Conv-F [ 16 ] (host)
47.49
43.5
23.0
1009
–
TABLE V: Model complexity and inference cost. Parameters are totals, and GFLOPs are incremental BFR overhead; dashes denote unavailable measurements.