Mitigating Uni-modal Sensory Bias in Multimodal Object Detection with Counterfactual Intervention and Causal Mode Multiplexing
Taeheon Kim, Sebin Shin, Youngjoon Yu, Hak Gu Kim, Yong Man Ro
OpenReview ground truth
Abstract
Multimodal object detection using RGB and thermal sensors (RGBT) has emerged as a promising solution for safety-critical vision applications that require non-stop operations all day/night. However, there are unsolved issues in multimodal object detection, including uni-modal sensory bias, where models tend to rely on one modality over the other instead of referring to multimodal reasoning. We analyze that training differential multimodal data (i.e., RXTO) on correlation-based symmetrical fusion topology structures provokes such skewed preference. To address this problem, we propose a novel Causal Mode Multiplexing (CMM) framework using the tools of counterfactual intervention. Different from the symmetrical fusion topology of existing methods, the proposed approach leverages two distinct causal graphs based on the input data type. The counterfactual intervention is performed on differential inputs (RXTO, ROTX), while the total effect of the symmetrical fusion topology is learned for common inputs (ROTO). Then, we propose a Causal Mode Multiplexing (CMM) Loss to optimize the interchange between two causal graphs. Overall, the CMM framework enables learning the causality links between the multimodal inputs and predictions, eliminating the uni-modal sensory bias. To assess the effectiveness of CMM, we introduce the ROTX Multispectral Pedestrian (ROTX-MPed) dataset which we will release in public. This dataset mainly includes counterexamples that are not present in existing data. Extensive experiments on KAIST, CVC-14, FLIR, and our ROTX-Mped dataset demonstrate that our CMM framework effectively learns multimodal reasoning and generalizes well on ROTX test data with only training conventional ROTO and RXTO data.
Author context
Most prolific author: 3 submissions (credibility 1.00).
No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).
Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.
Ranking trajectory
Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.
Battle history — 34 comparisons
Ranked above opponent in 52% of matchups.
Judge assessments
Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)