AlterMOMA: Fusion Redundancy Pruning for Camera-LiDAR Fusion Models with Alternative Modality Masking

Camera-LiDAR fusion models significantly enhance perception performance in autonomous driving. The fusion mechanism leverages the strengths of each modality while minimizing their weaknesses. Moreover, in practice, camera-LiDAR fusion models utilize pre-trained backbones for efficient training. However, we argue that directly loading single-modal pre-trained camera and LiDAR backbones into camera-LiDAR fusion models introduces similar feature redundancy across modalities due to the nature of the fusion mechanism. Unfortunately, existing pruning methods are developed explicitly for single-modal models, and thus, they struggle to effectively identify these specific redundant parameters in camera-LiDAR fusion models. In this paper, to address the issue above on camera-LiDAR fusion models, we propose a novelty pruning framework Alternative Modality Masking Pruning (AlterMOMA), which employs alternative masking on each modality and identifies the redundant parameters. Specifically, when one modality parameters are masked (deactivated), the absence of features from the masked backbone compels the model to reactivate previous redundant features of the other modality backbone. Therefore, these redundant features and relevant redundant parameters can be identified via the reactivation process. The redundant parameters can be pruned by our proposed importance score evaluation function, Alternative Evaluation (AlterEva), which is based on the observation of the loss changes when certain modality parameters are activated and deactivated. Extensive experiments on the nuScene and KITTI datasets encompassing diverse tasks, baseline models, and pruning algorithms showcase that AlterMOMA outperforms existing pruning methods, attaining state-of-the-art performance.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer 62BJ7/10 · confidence 3/52024-06-24

Summary

This paper introduces Alternative Modality Masking Pruning (AlterMOMA), a pruning framework utilizing alternative masking on each modality to pinpoint redundant parameters. It detects redundant features and relevant parameters through the reactivation process. These redundant parameters are then pruned using a proposed importance score evaluation function. Meanwhile, the observation of loss changes indicates which modality parameters are activated or deactivated.

Strengths

1. This paper is well-written, and the concept of alternately applying masking to the camera and Lidar backbones to identify and eliminate fusion-redundant parameters is innovative. 2. When designing the Deactivated Contribution Indicator (DeCI) and Reactivated Redundancy Indicator (ReRI) modules, thorough analysis and formula derivation were conducted for loss change processes using the masking method. 3. Extensive experiments on the nuScenes and KITTI datasets have demonstrated the effectiveness of AlterMOMA.

Weaknesses

The paper lacks an illustration of the costs associated with the proposed pruning method itself.

Questions

How many rounds does "Modal masking-Redundant activation-importance score evaluation" take?

Rating

7

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

4

Contribution

4

Limitations

Experiments indicate that the proposed Pruning method is effective. However, the effectiveness of other multi-modal fusion methods, such as VLM, still needs to be verified.

Reviewer fjuq6/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-08

Summary

This paper addresses the problem of feature redundancy in camera-LiDAR fusion models. The authors propose a novel pruning framework, AlterMOMA, which employs alternative masking to identify and prune redundant parameters in these models. The paper demonstrates the effectiveness of AlterMOMA through extensive experiments on the nuScenes and KITTI datasets, showing superior performance compared to existing pruning methods.

Strengths

1. The paper introduces a novel pruning framework specifically designed for multi-modal fusion models, addressing the unique challenge of redundant features across different modalities 2. Extensive results on nuScenes and KITTI showcasing the benefits and performance improvements of the proposed approach 3. The paper is very well written and easy to follow

Weaknesses

1. While the method is tested on two camera-LiDAR datasets, the generalizability of the approach to other fusion tasks and modalities beyond camera-LiDAR is not verified, such as video, optical flow and audio in action recognition [A]. 2. The running speed after pruning is not reported 3. In Table 5, the performance after pruning is even better than the original version. Are there any reasons and analysis? [A] Munro et al., Multi-modal domain adaptation for fine-grained action recognition. In CVPR, 2020.

Questions

Can the proposed method be effective on other tasks like action recognition?

Rating

6

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

The paper mentions one limitation regarding its limited use in the perception field.

Reviewer hcok7/10 · confidence 3/52024-07-12

Summary

This paper introduces a novel and effective pruning framework (AlterMOMA) and outperforms existing pruning methods on multimodal 3D detection/segmentation tasks, based on a novel insight : "The absence of fusion-contributed features will compel fusion modules to ’reactivate’ their fusion-redundant counterparts as supplementary to maintain functionality".

Strengths

- the paper presents a pioneering approach to pruning in camera-LiDAR fusion models, tackling redundancy through innovative masking strategies. The procedure is clearly explained and technically sound. - the proposed method demonstrates good performance on multiple tasks on two baseline model. - this paper proposes an interesting insight and tests it with experiments

Weaknesses

- while AlterMOMA aims to reduce model complexity, the paper could clarify the computational overhead introduced by the pruning process itself, especially regarding the training time and resources required for reactivation and evaluation. - it is interesting to use some more direct methods (e.g., feature visualization) to prove that the "reactivated" parameters are "redundant". - some minor typing errors (e.g., line132, an incorrect quotation mark), which do not affect my rating

Questions

the paper presents a pruning strategy for multimodal strategy, which seems to work on any multimodal task. However, the authors only experimented on the Camera-LiDAR task. Did authors try more modal combinations (Radar, or even Language, etc.)? Is the approach applicable to other broader tasks?

Rating

7

Confidence

3

Soundness

3

Presentation

4

Contribution

3

Limitations

the paper discussed the limitations in the Appendix.

Reviewer fjuq2024-08-11

Thank the authors for their rebuttal. Most of my concerns have been well-addressed and I thus increased my score to 6.

Reviewer hcok2024-08-12

The authors addressed most of my questions. It is surprising that the authors could add so many experiment results in the short rebuttal period. Based on this, I will maintain my initial score (7/Accept). Meanwhile, I would like to suggest the authors (1) make sure these additional experiment results can be added to the supplementary material, and (2) make sure the tables in the manuscript have the same/similar font size for better view (try not use \resizebox).

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-12

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and for maintaining your initial score. We appreciate your recognition of the additional experiment results we included during the rebuttal period. We will ensure that these additional results are included in the supplementary material, and we will revise the tables in the manuscript to maintain a consistent font size for better readability, avoiding the use of \resizebox. We sincerely appreciate your feedback and are grateful for your time in evaluating our work.

Reviewer 62BJ2024-08-13

Thanks for the authors' rebuttals, the illustration is clear. I will keep my initial score of 7 (Accept).

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-13

Thank you for your insightful reviews and for maintaining your initial score. We will address your feedback and include the analysis of the computational overhead of the pruning process in the further camera-ready version. We greatly appreciate your valuable insights and the time you’ve dedicated to evaluating our work.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC