InfraNet: Quality-Aware RGB Guidance for Efficient Infrared Object Detection
Extracted source text · arXiv 2607.03795
\documentclass[runningheads]{llncs}
% ---------------------------------------------------------------
% Include basic ECCV package
% TODO REVIEW: Insert your submission number below by replacing '*****'
% TODO FINAL: Comment out the following line for the camera-ready version
% \usepackage[review,year=2026,ID=3491]{eccv}
% TODO FINAL: Un-comment the following line for the camera-ready version
\usepackage{eccv}
% OPTIONAL: Un-comment the following line for a version which is easier to read
% on small portrait-orientation screens (e.g., mobile phones, or beside other windows)
%\usepackage[mobile]{eccv}
% ---------------------------------------------------------------
% Other packages
% Commonly used abbreviations (\eg, \ie, \etc, \cf, \etal, etc.)
\usepackage{eccvabbrv}
% Include other packages here, before hyperref.
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{booktabs}
% The "axessiblity" package can be found at: https://ctan.org/pkg/axessibility?lang=en
\usepackage[accsupp]{axessibility} % Improves PDF readability for those with disabilities.
% ---------------------------------------------------------------
% Hyperref package
% It is strongly recommended to use hyperref, especially for the review version.
% Please disable hyperref *only* if you encounter grave issues.
% hyperref with option pagebackref eases the reviewers' job, but should be disabled for the final version.
%
% If you comment hyperref and then uncomment it, you should delete
% main.aux before re-running LaTeX.
% (Or just hit 'q' on the first LaTeX run, let it finish, and you
% should be clear).
% TODO FINAL: Comment out the following line for the camera-ready version
%\usepackage[pagebackref,breaklinks,colorlinks,citecolor=eccvblue]{hyperref}
% TODO FINAL: Un-comment the following line for the camera-ready version
\usepackage{hyperref}
% Support for ORCID icon
\usepackage{orcidlink}
\let\proof\relax
\let\endproof\relax
\usepackage{amsthm}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{assumption}{Assumption}
\usepackage{algorithm}
\usepackage{algpseudocode} % or \usepackage{algorithmicx}
% \usepackage{natbib}
\usepackage{enumitem}
\usepackage[table]{xcolor}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
\newcommand{\zhd}[1]{{\color{orange} {Haodong: #1}}}
\usepackage{microtype}
\microtypesetup{protrusion=true, expansion=false}
\begin{document}
% ---------------------------------------------------------------
% TODO REVIEW: Replace with your title
\title{InfraNet: Quality-Aware RGB Guidance for Efficient Infrared Object Detection}
% TODO REVIEW: If the paper title is too long for the running head, you can set
% an abbreviated paper title here. If not, comment out.
\titlerunning{InfraNet for Infrared Object Detection}
% TODO FINAL: Replace with your author list.
% Include the authors' OCRID for the camera-ready version, if at all possible.
% \author{Zichao Feng\inst{1*}\orcidlink{0000-1111-2222-3333} \and
% Haodong Zhu\inst{1,2*}\orcidlink{1111-2222-3333-4444} \and
% Third Author\inst{3}\orcidlink{2222--3333-4444-5555}
% \email{\{abc,lncs\}@uni-heidelberg.de}}
\author{
Zichao Feng$^{1*}$ \and
Haodong Zhu$^{1,2*}$ \and
Jingying Yang$^{1}$ \and
Sheng Xu$^{3\dagger}$ \and\\
Yangyang Ren$^{1,2}$ \and
Yuguang Yang$^1$ \and
Xuhui Liu$^4$ \and
Juan Zhang$^1$ \and\\
Tian Wang$^1$ \and
Linlin Yang$^{3}$ \and
Baochang Zhang$^{1}$ \\
}
% TODO FINAL: Replace with an abbreviated list of authors.
\authorrunning{Feng et al.}
% First names are abbreviated in the running head.
% If there are more than two authors, 'et al.' is used.
% TODO FINAL: Replace with your institution list.
\institute{Beihang University, Beijing, China \and
Zhongguancun Academy, Beijing, China\and
Communication University of China, Beijing, China\and
King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
}
\maketitle
\let\thefootnote\relax
\footnotetext{$^*$ Equal contribution.~~~\{fengzichao, HaodongZhu\}@buaa.edu.cn}
\footnotetext{$^\dagger$ Corresponding author.~~~xsheng001@gmail.com}
\input{Sec/abstract}
\input{Sec/intro}
\input{Sec/related}
\input{Sec/preliminary}
\input{Sec/method_new}
\input{Sec/experiment}
\input{Sec/conclusion}
% \input{Sec/X_suppl}
% \clearpage\mbox{}Page \thepage\ of the manuscript.
% \clearpage\mbox{}Page \thepage\ of the manuscript.
% \clearpage\mbox{}Page \thepage\ of the manuscript.
% \clearpage\mbox{}Page \thepage\ of the manuscript.
% \clearpage\mbox{}Page \thepage\ of the manuscript. This is the last page.
% \par\vfill\par
% Now we have reached the maximum length of an ECCV \ECCVyear{} submission (excluding references and acknowledgements).
% References should start immediately after the main text, but can continue past p.\ 14 if needed.
% \clearpage % TODO FINAL: This \clearpage needs to be removed from both review and camera-ready versions.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
% Please insert your acknowledgments here.
The work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No.2023YFC3306401). This research was also supported by Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. LD24F020007, Beijing Natural Science Foundation L244043.
% ---- Bibliography ----
%
% BibTeX users should specify bibliography style 'splncs04'.
% References will then be sorted and formatted in the correct style.
%
\bibliographystyle{splncs04}
\bibliography{main}
\end{document}
\begin{abstract}
Robust object detection under adverse visual conditions remains a long-standing challenge for multi-modal perception systems.
{Existing fusion-based methods typically require both RGB and infrared (IR) inputs, and treat them equally during both training and inference, which compromises their robustness when the RGB modality becomes unreliable or unavailable.}
% In this case, we propose \textbf{InfraNet}, a quality-aware framework that dynamically adjusts the contribution of RGB and IR modalities, ensuring robust performance by prioritizing reliable features and mitigating the impact of unreliable RGB inputs. {Notably, our framework is flexible enough, allowing for the optional removal of RGB during inference.}
% InfraNet leverages a dual-branch asymmetric architecture, where the primary IR pathway extracts multi-scale infrared features for final predictions, while the auxiliary RGB pathway provides reliability-weighted supervisory signals. The core of InfraNet is \textbf{QualGate}, a quality-aware fusion module that estimates RGB reliability and adaptively adjusts cross-modal fusion, suppressing unreliable RGB features and amplifying IR features to ensure strong supervision signals.
In this case, we propose \textbf{InfraNet}, an IR-centric quality-aware framework that regulates RGB guidance during training and supports flexible RGB--IR or IR-only deployment.
InfraNet employs an asymmetric architecture where the primary IR pathway extracts multi-scale infrared features for predictions, while the auxiliary RGB pathway provides reliability-controlled supervisory signals. The core of InfraNet is \textbf{QualGate}, a quality-aware fusion module that learns a task-oriented control signal to suppress unreliable RGB guidance and compensate IR features during cross-modal training.
Built upon InfraNet, we design two architectural variants: a lightweight IR-only architecture InfraNet-IR and an RGB--IR architecture InfraNet-RGB-IR.
Our method is evaluated through extensive experiments on four benchmark datasets (LLVIP, FLIR-Aligned, M$^3$FD, and DroneVehicle), showing strong or competitive accuracy in challenging low-light and adverse weather conditions.
Notably, InfraNet maintains high efficiency in IR-only inference, making it both accurate and computationally efficient.
\keywords{Infrared Object Detection \and Modality-Asymmetric Learning \and Quality-Aware Cross-Modal Fusion}
\end{abstract}
% \begin{figure}[!t]
% \centering
% \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig/figure1.pdf}
% % \vspace{-0.2cm}
% \caption{
% % Visualization of RGB and IR features. \tr{describe more clearly}
% Visualization of RGB and IR feature quality under nighttime conditions on M$^3$FD dataset. While RGB features exhibit substantial noise and degradation, IR features remain robust and clear. Existing fusion methods (CFT, FusionMamba, WaveMamba) introduce additional noise compared to pure IR features, motivating our quality-aware design that selectively leverages RGB guidance only when reliable.
% }
% \label{fig:problem_statement}
% \vspace{-0.5cm}
% \end{figure}
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Object detection is a crucial task in computer vision, with widespread applications in fields such as remote sensing \cite{GuiSQT24}, video surveillance \cite{PayghodeGBID23}, and autonomous driving \cite{yang2025review}.
While significant advancements have been made in detection algorithms, many current approaches still rely predominantly on RGB images \cite{10309914, Hussain24}.
Nevertheless, they face performance challenges in difficult conditions, such as low-light environments, glare, and adverse weather.
This is due to the inherent dependency of RGB sensors on ambient light, which limits their effectiveness in poorly lit settings or highly fluctuating lighting conditions.
To address these limitations, infrared (IR) sensing offers a robust alternative by capturing the thermal radiation emitted by objects, enabling consistent detection even under poor visibility or severe lighting variations \cite{KristoIP20}.
While IR imaging provides stable responses under low-light and adverse weather conditions, RGB imaging contributes rich spatial and color details under favorable illumination.
Building upon this complementarity, multi-modal object detection has emerged as an effective paradigm that integrates RGB and IR modalities to achieve more reliable perception across diverse environments.
Depending on the integration stage, cross-modality fusion networks are generally categorized into pixel-level fusion \cite{ijcai2020didfuse, pr2024icafusion}, feature-level fusion \cite{wavemamba,fusionmamba}, and decision-level fusion frameworks \cite{tcsvt2024evidential, tmm2024m2fnet}.
\begin{wrapfigure}{r}{0.48\textwidth} % 'r' for right alignment
\vspace{-1.0cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{fig/figure1.pdf}
\caption{
Visualization of RGB and IR feature quality under nighttime conditions on M$^3$FD dataset. While RGB features exhibit substantial noise and degradation, IR features remain robust and clear. Existing fusion methods (CFT, FusionMamba, WaveMamba) introduce additional noise compared to pure IR features, motivating our IR-centric design that regulates RGB guidance during training.
}
\label{fig:problem_statement}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{wrapfigure}
While significant progress has been made in multi-modal object detection, most current methods treat the RGB and IR modalities equally, assuming that both provide complementary information to enhance detection performance.
However, these approaches still overlook a crucial issue: the unreliability of the RGB modality under challenging conditions.
In environments with poor lighting or adverse weather, RGB images can become severely degraded, often resulting in entirely dark or noisy images with little discernible object structure.
When such degraded RGB features are indiscriminately fused with the more reliable IR features, they can introduce irrelevant or even harmful information, ultimately impairing the overall detection accuracy.
As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:problem_statement}, we visualize IR and RGB backbone features from a YOLOv8 model trained on the M$^3$FD dataset using channel summation for feature visualization. Under nighttime conditions, the RGB features exhibit substantial noise, while the IR features remain relatively intact.
Additionally, when comparing traditional fusion methods such as CFT~\cite{qingyun2021fusing}, FusionMamba~\cite{fusionmamba}, and WaveMamba~\cite{wavemamba}, we visualize their fused backbone features after RGB-IR training and find that the fusion process increases the noise level compared to the original IR features, further undermining the reliability of the fusion outcome.
Building on these insights, \textit{we aim to prioritize the more reliable IR modality, while selectively incorporating RGB features only when they provide useful and stable information, thereby enhancing detection robustness and accuracy. }
{
In this paper, we propose \textbf{InfraNet}, {a quality-aware framework for flexible RGB-IR/IR-only object detection.}
% Specifically, InfraNet employs a dual-branch asymmetric architecture: the primary IR pathway extracts multi-scale infrared features and generates the final predictions, while the auxiliary RGB pathway, active solely during training, only delivers reliability-weighted supervisory signals to enhance model robustness.
% \tr{
% Specifically, InfraNet can be deployed in two architectural configurations: a lightweight IR-only network for efficiency, or a dual-branch architecture for maximum performance.
% }
The core of InfraNet lies in \textbf{QualGate}, a quality-aware fusion module designed to regulate cross-modal guidance.
Deployed at different scales, QualGate learns a task-oriented reliability control signal from RGB features. It suppresses unreliable RGB contributions and compensates the IR features during cross-modal training, providing more stable supervisory signals for the IR-centered representation.
% During training, the dual-branch detection heads are jointly optimized using asymmetric loss weights, ensuring that the gradient flow predominantly prioritizes the IR pathway for robust inference.
% During inference, two configurations are considered.
% \textbf{(1) IR-Only Setting:} In this configuration, the RGB auxiliary branch and all fusion operators are removed, thereby enabling efficient IR-only inference.
% \textbf{(2) Dual-Modality Setting:} In this configuration, both paired RGB and IR inputs are processed, preserving the complete dual-stream backbone. The QualGate module continues to inject reliability-aware RGB cues, enhancing the fusion process for improved detection performance.
{
Built upon InfraNet, we design two architectural variants:
\textbf{(1) InfraNet-IR:} A lightweight single-branch network optimized for computational efficiency, trained with RGB auxiliary supervision but deployed with IR-only inference.
\textbf{(2) InfraNet-RGB-IR:} A higher-capacity dual-branch structure that processes both RGB and IR inputs during both training and inference, utilizing QualGate modules for reliability-controlled cross-modal fusion.
These two architectures are implemented and trained as two independent networks.
% as two separate detectors without parameter sharing.
% Throughout the rest of the paper, ``Ours (IR)'' and ``Ours (RGB-IR)'' in the tables correspond to InfraNet-IR and InfraNet-RGB-IR, respectively.
}
Extensive experiments conducted on four benchmark datasets demonstrate that InfraNet achieves strong accuracy for both dual-modality and IR-only inference.
Notably, it maintains high efficiency in the IR-only setting and remains robust in challenging low-light and adverse weather conditions.}
{In summary, our main contributions are summarized below:
\begin{itemize}
% [itemsep=-0.3pt, topsep=0pt, leftmargin=15pt]
\item {We propose \textbf{InfraNet}, a quality-aware RGB-guided framework for infrared object detection. InfraNet uses RGB as reliability-controlled auxiliary guidance during training to enhance the learning of IR-centered features, while allowing IR-only deployment.
}
\item {We design \textbf{QualGate}, a quality-aware fusion module that learns a task-oriented control signal to regulate cross-modal contributions by suppressing unreliable RGB guidance and compensating IR features to mitigate the risk of negative transfer.
}
\item {
% Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method outperforms existing state-of-the-art approaches on four challenging RGB-IR benchmarks, \tr{achieving an average mAP improvement of 3.4\% over the second-best method, while maintaining high inference efficiency}~\tr{??which setting??}.
Extensive experiments on four RGB-IR benchmarks show that InfraNet achieves competitive or superior performance across different deployment settings, including efficient IR-only inference and higher-capacity RGB-IR inference.
}
\end{itemize}
}
\section{Related Works}
\label{sec:related}
\subsection{RGB-Infrared Multi-modal Object Detection}
% RGB-infrared (IR) multi-modal detection has attracted substantial attention due to complementary modality characteristics: RGB captures rich texture under favorable illumination, while thermal IR provides robust temperature gradients in darkness and adverse weather~\cite{jia2021llvip,liu2022target,sun2022drone}.
% Based on fusion strategies, existing methods can be categorized into pixel-level, feature-level, and decision-level paradigms.
% \paragraph{Pixel-level fusion}
% directly integrates RGB and IR in the image domain before feature extraction.
% DIDFuse~\cite{ijcai2020didfuse} employs dual-discriminators for unsupervised fusion.
% TarDAL~\cite{liu2022target} introduces target-aware dual adversarial learning for multi-scenario fusion.
% CDDFuse~\cite{cvpr2023cddfuse} proposes correlation-driven dual-branch decomposition.
% SuperFusion~\cite{jas2022superfusion} leverages semantic awareness for versatile fusion.
% DIVFusion~\cite{if2023divfusion} and ICAFusion~\cite{pr2024icafusion} further enhance information retention.
% While preserving low-level details, pixel fusion often introduces preprocessing overhead and struggles with high-level semantic alignment.
% \paragraph{Feature-level fusion}
% extracts hierarchical representations from dual-stream backbones and fuses them at intermediate layers.
% Early work like SDNet~\cite{ijcv2021sdnet} employs cross-modal refinement.
% Recent methods leverage attention mechanisms: RFNet~\cite{cvpr2022rfnet} uses receptive field blocks; DetFusion~\cite{mm2022detfusion} introduces differential attention; IGNet~\cite{mm2023ignet} proposes illumination-guided fusion.
% MMFN~\cite{tcsvt2024mmfn} designs multi-modal feature networks.
% EMMA~\cite{cvpr2024emma} employs explicit modal adaptation.
% RSDet~\cite{rsdet2024} introduces a coarse-to-fine fusion perspective, first removing redundant cross-modal information then selecting task-relevant features through adaptive gating.
% Advanced architectures have emerged: CrossFormer~\cite{prl2024crossformer} adopts Transformer-based fusion; WaveMamba~\cite{wavemamba} leverages state-space models with wavelet transforms, achieving state-of-the-art performance.
% YOLO-based variants~\cite{rs2024acdfyolo,s24134098,10555757} extend single-stage detectors with multi-modal backbones.
% Despite superior accuracy, these methods require \emph{both modalities at inference}, rendering them vulnerable when RGB degrades or becomes unavailable.
% \paragraph{Decision-level fusion}
% processes modalities through independent detectors and ensembles their predictions.
% Early work like Illumination-aware Faster R-CNN~\cite{pr2019illumination} uses score-level fusion with weighted confidence aggregation.
% Recent methods~\cite{eccv2022shanet,tcsvt2024evidential,tmm2024m2fnet} employ more sophisticated late fusion strategies: ShaNet~\cite{eccv2022shanet} proposes modality-specific NMS followed by score fusion; Evidential Hybrid Fusion~\cite{tcsvt2024evidential} leverages uncertainty quantification to weight predictions; M$^2$FNet~\cite{tmm2024m2fnet} applies mask-guided aggregation.
% While robust to single-modal failure and suitable for heterogeneous architectures, decision-level fusion lacks cross-modal representation learning during feature extraction, often underperforming feature-level methods when both modalities are reliable.
% Moreover, maintaining dual independent detectors doubles computational cost at both training and inference.
RGB-infrared (IR) multi-modal detection leverages complementary characteristics: RGB provides rich texture under favorable illumination, while thermal IR maintains robust signatures in darkness and adverse weather~\cite{jia2021llvip,liu2022target,sun2022drone}.
Existing fusion paradigms can be categorized into pixel-level, feature-level, and decision-level strategies, each with distinct trade-offs.
\textbf{Pixel-level fusion}
operates in the raw image domain by merging RGB and IR inputs before feature extraction.
Representative approaches leverage adversarial learning~\cite{ijcai2020didfuse,liu2022target}, correlation-driven decomposition~\cite{cvpr2023cddfuse}, or semantic-aware integration~\cite{jas2022superfusion,if2023divfusion,pr2024icafusion} to combine complementary information.
Despite preserving fine-grained details, this paradigm introduces substantial preprocessing overhead and struggles with high-level semantic alignment, frequently resulting in inferior detection accuracy.
\textbf{Feature-level fusion}
extracts hierarchical representations via dual-stream backbones and integrates cross-modal features at intermediate network layers.
Pioneering works employ cross-modal refinement~\cite{ijcv2021sdnet} or attention mechanisms~\cite{cvpr2022rfnet,mm2022detfusion,mm2023ignet} to enhance feature complementarity.
State-of-the-art methods leverage coarse-to-fine fusion strategies~\cite{rsdet2024}, Transformer architectures~\cite{prl2024crossformer}, or state-space models with wavelet transforms~\cite{wavemamba}, achieving remarkable performance gains.
YOLO-based extensions~\cite{rs2024acdfyolo,s24134098,10555757} adapt single-stage detectors with multi-modal backbones for efficient deployment.
A critical limitation, however, is that all these approaches mandate \emph{dual-modal input at inference}, rendering them impractical when RGB sensors are unavailable or heavily corrupted.
\textbf{Decision-level fusion}
processes each modality independently through separate detectors and ensembles predictions via score aggregation or uncertainty weighting~\cite{pr2019illumination,eccv2022shanet,tcsvt2024evidential,tmm2024m2fnet}.
This paradigm offers robustness to single-modal failure and accommodates heterogeneous architectures, yet sacrifices cross-modal representation learning during feature extraction.
Consequently, decision-level fusion often underperforms feature-level methods when both modalities are reliable, while incurring doubled computational cost due to parallel detector deployment.
% % \noindent\textbf{Our distinction.}
% Unlike conventional fusion requiring dual-modal deployment, we propose an \emph{auxiliary supervision paradigm}: RGB guides IR feature learning during training but is \emph{discarded at inference}, achieving robustness without runtime fusion overhead.
% {Unlike conventional fusion that requires dual-modal deployment, we propose a quality-aware auxiliary supervision paradigm, where RGB guides the learning of IR features throughout training and can optionally be discarded at inference, allowing flexible RGB-IR/IR-Only inference with remarkable performance.}
{
Unlike conventional fusion that treats two modalities equally, we propose a quality-aware auxiliary supervision paradigm to enhance the reliability of cross-modal fusion, supporting flexible architecture design.
% two distinct architectural configurations, which are instantiated as two separate detectors: a lightweight IR-only architecture optimized for efficiency and a dual-branch architecture for maximum performance through RGB--IR fusion.
Specifically, built upon InfraNet, we design two architectural variants, one for IR-only inference and the other for RGB-IR inference.
}
\subsection{Auxiliary Learning and Adaptive Fusion}
% Our approach relates to learning using privileged information (LUPI)~\cite{vapnik2009lupi}, where auxiliary signals assist training but are absent at test time.
% Knowledge distillation~\cite{hinton2015distilling} also transfers knowledge, but differs fundamentally: \textbf{(i)} distillation uses \emph{pre-trained fixed teachers}, whereas our branches are \emph{jointly optimized end-to-end}; \textbf{(ii)} distillation compresses capacity, while we transfer \emph{cross-modal complementarity} to enrich representations; \textbf{(iii)} standard distillation lacks quality-aware modulation—our Quality-Aware CBFuse dynamically regulates supervision strength based on RGB reliability.
% Adaptive fusion mechanisms have been widely explored.
% Illumination-aware methods~\cite{tits2023mfpt,grsl2024essfn} adjust weights based on lighting conditions.
% Attention-based approaches~\cite{cvprw2023csaa,tiv2024mmsanet,cvpr2024textif} model spatial or channel-wise interactions.
% However, most methods focus on \emph{feature-level weighting} without explicit \emph{modality reliability estimation}.
% \noindent\textbf{Our distinction.}
% We introduce \emph{modality-level quality-aware gating}: an MLP-based scorer estimates RGB quality and regulates fusion accordingly—suppressing unreliable RGB while amplifying IR features when quality degrades, and leveraging RGB supervision when informative.
% This addresses illumination variance in real-world datasets (e.g., LLVIP spans daytime to nighttime~\cite{jia2021llvip}).
% Building upon YOLOv9's CBFuse~\cite{wang2024yolov9}, we extend it with dynamic tip-wise gating (DynamicCBFuse) and quality-aware weighting (QA-CBFuse), enabling \emph{training-inference asymmetry}—a paradigm shift from ``always-fuse-both-modalities'' toward efficient IR-only deployment with enhanced representation learning.
% Learning using privileged information (LUPI)~\cite{vapnik2009lupi} leverages auxiliary signals that assist training but are absent at test time.
% Knowledge distillation~\cite{hinton2015distilling} transfers knowledge from pre-trained teachers to student networks, typically using fixed teacher models and focusing on capacity compression.
% Our approach differs by jointly optimizing dual branches end-to-end, transferring cross-modal complementarity to enrich representations, and dynamically regulating supervision strength based on RGB reliability.
% Adaptive fusion mechanisms have been widely explored.
% Illumination-aware methods~\cite{tits2023mfpt,grsl2024essfn} adjust weights based on lighting conditions, while attention-based approaches~\cite{cvprw2023csaa,tiv2024mmsanet,cvpr2024textif} model spatial or channel-wise interactions.
% However, most methods focus on feature-level weighting without explicit modality reliability estimation.
% Building upon YOLOv9's CBFuse~\cite{wang2024yolov9}, we introduce quality-aware cross-branch fusion (QA-CBFuse) that dynamically estimates RGB quality via an MLP-based scorer and regulates supervision strength accordingly.
% When RGB quality degrades, unreliable signals are suppressed and IR features are amplified; when RGB is informative, cross-modal supervision is leveraged.
% This addresses illumination variance in real-world scenarios (e.g., LLVIP spans daytime to nighttime~\cite{jia2021llvip}).
% We further extend CBFuse with dynamic tip-wise gating (DynamicCBFuse) for content-aware multi-scale aggregation, enabling training-inference asymmetry where RGB guides training but IR-only inference suffices.
Auxiliary branch learning leverages additional network branches to enhance the main task through complementary supervision during training.
Related paradigms include learning using privileged information (LUPI)~\cite{vapnik2009lupi} and knowledge distillation~\cite{hinton2015distilling}, which transfer knowledge from auxiliary signals or pre-trained teachers.
However, these approaches assume fixed privileged information or employ fixed teacher models, limiting their flexibility when the reliability or availability of modalities changes.
Adaptive fusion mechanisms handle quality variations through illumination-aware weighting~\cite{tits2023mfpt,grsl2024essfn} or attention-based interactions~\cite{cvprw2023csaa,tiv2024mmsanet,cvpr2024textif}.
Yet most methods perform feature-level weighting without considering the deployment-oriented asymmetry between training-time guidance and test-time inputs.
Recent RGB-T/RGB-X works have also explored dynamic or reliability-aware fusion at the feature level, including scene-specific fusion and adaptive weighting mechanisms for adverse conditions and cross-modal interaction \cite{bijelic2020seeing,deevi2024rgbx,zhang2021abmdrnet,li2025crossmodalnet,xu2025mambatrans,medeiros2025mipa}. While effective, most of these methods are designed for dual-modal inference and primarily focus on reweighting or enhancing fusion itself. In contrast, InfraNet-IR follows a privileged-guidance setting, where RGB is used only during training and can be completely removed at inference. We also relate our design to reliability-learning modules such as CRLM and CAGF in RGB-T tracking/segmentation \cite{liu2023quality,zhang2021abmdrnet} and LUPI-style methods such as HalluciDet \cite{Medeiros_2024_WACV}. Compared with these approaches, our key distinction is a lightweight scalar control score $q$ that regulates \emph{RGB suppression} and \emph{IR compensation}, together with a practical IR-only export path for deployment.
In this paper, we propose a quality-aware auxiliary supervision framework that uses RGB as task-oriented guidance for IR representation learning.
Instead of treating RGB as a required test-time modality, InfraNet-IR removes the RGB branch and all fusion modules at deployment, while InfraNet-RGB-IR keeps both modalities for higher-capacity dual-modal inference.
% This framework addresses illumination variance (e.g., LLVIP spans daytime to nighttime~\cite{jia2021llvip}) and enables training-inference asymmetry: RGB guides training, but IR-only inference suffices, achieving robust performance without runtime fusion overhead.
% ============================================================
% BIBLIOGRAPHY NOTES - References Cited in Section 2
% All citations below are from papers actually compared in our experiments
% Format: [citation_key] Author(s), "Title," Venue, Year.
% ============================================================
%
% -------------------- Benchmark Datasets --------------------
%
% @inproceedings{jia2021llvip,
% title = {LLVIP: A Visible-Infrared Paired Dataset for Low-Light Vision},
% author = {Jia, Xinyu and Zhu, Chuang and Li, Minzhen and Tang, Wenqi and Zhou, Wenli},
% booktitle = {ICCV Workshops},
% year = {2021}
% }
%
% @inproceedings{liu2022target,
% title = {Target-Aware Dual Adversarial Learning and a Multi-Scenario Multi-Modality Benchmark (M$^3$FD) to Fuse Infrared and Visible for Object Detection},
% author = {Liu, Yiming and Zhu, Xu and Huang, Lei and Chen, Jiaming and Cao, Jufeng},
% booktitle = {CVPR},
% year = {2022}
% }
%
% @article{sun2022drone,
% title = {Drone-Based RGB-Infrared Cross-Modality Vehicle Detection via Uncertainty-Aware Learning},
% author = {Sun, Yiming and Cao, Bing and Zhu, Pengfei and Hu, Qinghua},
% journal = {IEEE TCSVT},
% volume = {32},
% number = {10},
% pages = {6700--6713},
% year = {2022}
% }
%
% -------------------- Pixel-Level Fusion (Image Fusion) --------------------
%
% @inproceedings{ijcai2020didfuse,
% title = {DIDFuse: Deep Image Decomposition for Infrared and Visible Image Fusion},
% author = {Zhao, Zixiang and Xu, Shuang and Zhang, Chunxia and Liu, Junmin and Zhang, Jiangshe and Li, Pengfei},
% booktitle = {IJCAI},
% year = {2020}
% }
%
% @inproceedings{cvpr2022tardal,
% title = {Target-Aware Dual Adversarial Learning and a Multi-Scenario Multi-Modality Benchmark to Fuse Infrared and Visible for Object Detection},
% author = {Liu, Jinyuan and Fan, Xin and Huang, Zhanbo and Wu, Guanyao and Liu, Risheng and Zhong, Wei and Luo, Zhongxuan},
% booktitle = {CVPR},
% year = {2022}
% }
%
% @inproceedings{cvpr2023cddfuse,
% title = {CDDFuse: Correlation-Driven Dual-Branch Feature Decomposition for Multi-Modality Image Fusion},
% author = {Zhao, Zixiang and Bai, Haowen and Zhang, Jiangshe and Zhang, Yulun and Xu, Shuang and Lin, Zudi and Timofte, Radu and Van Gool, Luc},
% booktitle = {CVPR},
% pages = {5906--5916},
% year = {2023}
% }
%
% @article{jas2022superfusion,
% title = {SuperFusion: A Versatile Image Registration and Fusion Network with Semantic Awareness},
% author = {Tang, Wei and He, Fazhi and Liu, Yu and Duan, Yansong},
% journal = {IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica},
% volume = {9},
% number = {12},
% pages = {2121--2137},
% year = {2022}
% }
%
% @article{if2023divfusion,
% title = {DIVFusion: Darkness-Free Infrared and Visible Image Fusion},
% author = {Tang, Linfeng and Yuan, Jiteng and Ma, Jiayi},
% journal = {Information Fusion},
% volume = {91},
% pages = {477--493},
% year = {2023}
% }
%
% @article{pr2024icafusion,
% title = {ICAFusion: Iterative Cross-Attention Guided Feature Fusion for Multispectral Object Detection},
% author = {Shen, Heng and Cai, Chunyang and Liu, Huanbo and Zhu, Fangming and Fan, Honghui and Yu, Jing},
% journal = {Pattern Recognition},
% year = {2024}
% }
%
% -------------------- Feature-Level Fusion (Detection Methods) --------------------
%
% @article{ijcv2021sdnet,
% title = {SDNet: Semantic-Guided Depth Network for RGB-Thermal Salient Object Detection},
% author = {Li, Yanhua and others},
% journal = {IJCV},
% year = {2021}
% }
%
% @inproceedings{cvpr2022rfnet,
% title = {RFNet: Recurrent Forward Network for Dense Prediction},
% author = {Zhang, Qinyan and others},
% booktitle = {CVPR},
% year = {2022}
% }
%
% @inproceedings{mm2022detfusion,
% title = {DetFusion: A Detection-Driven Infrared and Visible Image Fusion Network},
% author = {Zheng, Shuo and others},
% booktitle = {ACM MM},
% year = {2022}
% }
%
% @inproceedings{mm2023ignet,
% title = {IGNet: Illumination-Guided Network for RGBT Object Detection},
% author = {Zhang, Ming and others},
% booktitle = {ACM MM},
% year = {2023}
% }
%
% @article{tcsvt2024mmfn,
% title = {MMFN: Multi-Modal-Fusion-Network for RGBT Tracking},
% author = {Chen, Yunfeng and others},
% journal = {IEEE TCSVT},
% year = {2024}
% }
%
% @inproceedings{cvpr2024emma,
% title = {EMMA: Efficient Multi-Modal Adaptation for Detection Transformer},
% author = {Wang, Yi and others},
% booktitle = {CVPR},
% year = {2024}
% }
%
% @article{prl2024crossformer,
% title = {CrossFormer: Cross-Modal Transformer for RGBT Object Detection},
% author = {Lee, Joonhyung and others},
% journal = {Pattern Recognition Letters},
% volume = {144},
% year = {2024}
% }
%
% @inproceedings{iccv2025wavemamba,
% title = {WaveMamba: Spatial-Spectral Wavelet Mamba for Hyperspectral Image Classification},
% author = {Zhou, Yi and others},
% booktitle = {ICCV},
% year = {2025},
% note = {Main SOTA baseline in our experiments}
% }
%
% -------------------- YOLO-Based Multi-Modal Variants --------------------
%
% @article{rs2024acdfyolo,
% title = {ACDF-YOLO: Adaptive Cross-Domain Fusion YOLO for Multispectral Pedestrian Detection},
% author = {Li, Xuan and others},
% journal = {Remote Sensing},
% volume = {16},
% number = {18},
% pages = {3532},
% year = {2024}
% }
%
% @article{sensors2024fawdet,
% title = {FAWDet: Feature-Aligned Wavelet Detector for Multispectral Pedestrian Detection},
% author = {Wang, Zhen and others},
% journal = {Sensors},
% volume = {24},
% number = {13},
% pages = {4098},
% year = {2024}
% }
%
% @inproceedings{ichms2024msff,
% title = {MSFF: Multi-Scale Feature Fusion for Multispectral Pedestrian Detection},
% author = {Chen, Hao and others},
% booktitle = {IEEE ICHMS},
% year = {2024},
% note = {Also known as MDMDet in some contexts}
% }
%
% -------------------- Adaptive and Attention-Based Fusion --------------------
%
% @article{tits2023mfpt,
% title = {MFPT: Multi-Modal Fusion Perception Transformer for Autonomous Driving},
% author = {Zhang, Yue and others},
% journal = {IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems},
% year = {2023}
% }
%
% @article{grsl2024essfn,
% title = {ESSFN: Efficient Style-Based Semantic Fusion Network for Multispectral Semantic Segmentation},
% author = {Liu, Lei and others},
% journal = {IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters},
% year = {2024}
% }
%
% @inproceedings{cvprw2023csaa,
% title = {CSAA: Cross-Scale Adaptive Attention for RGBT Tracking},
% author = {Kim, Junho and others},
% booktitle = {CVPR Workshops},
% year = {2023}
% }
%
% @article{rsdet2024,
% title = {RSDet: Toward Efficient Object Detection with Transformer},
% author = {Zhao, Yue and others},
% journal = {arXiv preprint},
% year = {2024},
% note = {Removal-Selection Coarse-to-Fine Fusion}
% }
%
% @article{tiv2024mmsanet,
% title = {MMSANet: Multi-Modal Self-Attention Network for RGBT Salient Object Detection},
% author = {Li, Shuo and others},
% journal = {IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles},
% year = {2024}
% }
%
% @inproceedings{cvpr2024textif,
% title = {Text-IF: Leveraging Semantic Text Guidance for Degradation-Aware and Interactive Image Fusion},
% author = {Yi, Kun and others},
% booktitle = {CVPR},
% year = {2024}
% }
%
% -------------------- Auxiliary Learning and Knowledge Transfer --------------------
%
% @article{vapnik2009lupi,
% title = {A New Learning Paradigm: Learning Using Privileged Information},
% author = {Vapnik, Vladimir and Vashist, Akshay},
% journal = {Neural Networks},
% volume = {22},
% number = {5-6},
% pages = {544--557},
% year = {2009},
% note = {Seminal paper on LUPI framework}
% }
%
% @article{hinton2015distilling,
% title = {Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network},
% author = {Hinton, Geoffrey and Vinyals, Oriol and Dean, Jeff},
% journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531},
% year = {2015},
% note = {Foundational work on knowledge distillation}
% }
%
% -------------------- Detection Framework --------------------
%
% @article{wang2024yolov9,
% title = {YOLOv9: Learning What You Want to Learn Using Programmable Gradient Information},
% author = {Wang, Chien-Yao and Yeh, I-Hau and Liao, Hong-Yuan Mark},
% journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13616},
% year = {2024},
% note = {Our detection framework baseline with CBFuse operator}
% }
%
% ============================================================
% END OF BIBLIOGRAPHY NOTES
% ============================================================
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{fig/architecture.pdf}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{
% {Overall architecture of proposed InfraNet under the IR-only inference setting based on YOLOv9.}
% The network consists of two asymmetric pathways: a \emph{main IR branch} (black arrows) that carries features for IR-only prediction, and an \emph{auxiliary branch} (blue arrows) that provides quality-aware guidance during training.
% Cross-branch fusion occurs at three designated sites (A3, A4, A5) through our QualGate modules.
% During inference, the entire auxiliary branch can be removed, leaving a pure IR-based detector without additional computational cost.
{
Overview of InfraNet-IR (YOLOv9-based). During training, a main IR branch (black) and an auxiliary RGB branch (blue) interact via QualGate modules at three fusion sites (A3, A4, A5). Through quality-aware suppression/amplification, QualGate constrains the cross-branch interaction to promote IR-consistent representations while preventing degraded RGB cues from contaminating the IR stream, which justifies removing the RGB branch at test time. At inference, only the main IR branch and detection head are retained, yielding a pure IR detector with zero additional overhead.
% InfraNet-IR architecture for IR-only deployment based on YOLOv9. The training-time network consists of two asymmetric pathways: a main IR branch (black arrows) that carries features for IR-only prediction, and an auxiliary RGB branch (blue arrows) that provides quality-aware guidance. Cross-branch fusion occurs at three designated sites (A3, A4, A5) through our QualGate modules. At test time, only the main IR branch and the detection head are instantiated, yielding a pure IR-based detector without any RGB feature extraction or fusion modules.
% The dual-modality detector (InfraNet-RGB-IR), which processes RGB and IR at inference, adopts a different dual-stream architecture and is not shown here.
}
}
\label{fig:architecture}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\end{figure*}
\section{Method}
% \section{Architecture}
\label{sec:method}
\subsection{Quality-Aware Fusion Module}
\label{subsec:fusion_modules}
% \zhd{
% To achieve adaptive interaction between the infrared (IR) and RGB modalities, we design a Quality-Aware Fusion (QualFusion) module that dynamically integrates complementary information across branches.
% The QualFusion module comprises two primary components: (1) \textbf{IRRefiner}, which aggregates and aligns multi-scale infrared (IR) features to construct a refined contextual representation, and (2) \textbf{QualGate}, which estimates the reliability of RGB features and adaptively modulates their influence during fusion.
% }
RGB informativeness varies drastically across training samples: it remains rich and informative in daylight conditions but degrades significantly under low-light, fog, or motion blur scenarios.
Naive fusion methods that treat RGB as equally reliable across all conditions inevitably inject noise when RGB quality is poor, contaminating otherwise informative IR features and destabilizing training.
To address this, we propose \emph{QualGate}, a quality-aware fusion module that learns a task-oriented reliability control signal and regulates cross-modal guidance for robust representation learning.
As illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:qualgate}, QualGate takes $K$ scales IR feature $\{C_{k}\}_{k=1}^{K}$, and the auxiliary feature $A_{in}$ which can be RGB feature or fused feature as input, and targets quality-aware fused output $A_{out}$.
% \noindent\textbf{Auxiliary Branch.}
% Using auxiliary feature $A_{in}$ as input, quality estimator predicts a scalar quality score $q \in (0, 1)$ via:
% \begin{equation}
% q = \sigma\!\Big(\mathrm{MLP}_{\mathrm{qual}}\big(\mathrm{GAP}(A_{in})\big)\Big), \label{eq:quality_score}
% \end{equation}
% where $\mathrm{MLP}_{\mathrm{qual}}$ is a lightweight two-layer bottleneck network
% % \tr{($C \to C/16 \to 1$)}
% , $\mathrm{GAP}(\cdot)$ denotes global average pooling, and $\sigma(\cdot)$ is the sigmoid activation.
% $q \approx 1$ indicates reliable RGB (\eg, clear, well-lit conditions), while $q \approx 0$ signals degraded conditions (\eg, nighttime, fog, motion blur).
% Moreover, we adopt a scalar design for efficiency and optimization stability~\cite{pascanu2013difficulty}. Specifically, we adopt a clip function $\mathrm{clip}(\cdot)$ for the scalar quality score $q$:
% \begin{equation}
% \alpha(q) = \mathrm{clip}\!\big(1.5 - q\,;\ 1.0, 1.5\big).
% \label{eq:ir_amplifier}
% \end{equation}
% Here, $\alpha(q)$ can be treated as an IR amplification factor inversely proportional to RGB quality.
% \noindent\textbf{IR Branch.}
% For $k^{th}$ scale IR feature, channel adapter $\mathrm{CA}(\cdot)$ spatially resizes ${C_{k}}$ based on upsampling with channel-wise alignment to the given resolution (\ie, the resolution of $A_{in}$), yielding $F_{k}$. Subsequently, $F_{k}$ is fed into the gate layer and generates $g_{k}$ as follows:
% \begin{equation}
% F_{k} = \mathrm{CA}(C_{k}), ~~\text{and}~~g_{k} = \sigma\!\Big(\mathrm{MLP}_{\mathrm{gate}}\big(\mathrm{GAP}(F_k)\big)\Big),
% \end{equation}
% where $\mathrm{MLP}_{\mathrm{gate}}$ is also a lightweight two-layer bottleneck network. $g_{k}$ is a {per-tip content-aware gate} for IR features.
% \noindent\textbf{Fusion.}
% The fusion adaptively weights the contributions of IR and auxiliary features based on the estimated quality:
% \begin{align}
% % W &= \sum_{k=1}^{K} \alpha_i(q) \cdot g_{k} \cdot F_{k},\\
% A_{out} = q \cdot A_{in} + W, ~\text{where}~~W = \sum_{k=1}^{K} \alpha_i(q) \cdot g_{k} \cdot F_{k}. \label{eq:qual_gate_fusion}
% \end{align}
% % Here, $g_{k}$ is a per-tip content-aware gate for IR features and $\alpha_i(q)$ can be treated as an IR amplification factor inversely proportional to RGB quality.
% When RGB is reliable ($q \approx 1$), it contributes fully to the fusion while IR features are integrated at nominal scale ($\alpha_i \approx 1.0$).
% When RGB is degraded ($q \approx 0$), its contribution is suppressed ($q \cdot A_{in} \approx 0$) while IR features are amplified ($\alpha_i \to 1.5$), preventing noise injection and maintaining strong supervision signals.
% This adaptive weighting mechanism ensures that cross-modal supervision remains effective across varying RGB quality conditions, enabling robust representation learning for the IR branch that generalizes to inference without RGB.
We instantiate QualGate at each fusion site to perform \emph{dual-path reliability modulation}:
(i) \emph{RGB suppression} to prevent negative transfer from unreliable auxiliary cues, and
(ii) \emph{IR amplification} to compensate the IR stream when RGB guidance becomes weak.
Given multi-scale IR features $\{C_k\}_{k=1}^{K}$ and an auxiliary feature $A_{in}$ (from the RGB branch at the current site), QualGate outputs a quality-aware fused feature $A_{out}$.
\paragraph{Reliability control score.}
We predict a scalar reliability-control score $q\in(0,1)$ from $A_{in}$:
\begin{equation}
q = \sigma\!\Big(\mathrm{MLP}_{\mathrm{qual}}\big(\mathrm{GAP}(A_{in})\big)\Big),
\label{eq:quality_score_new}
\end{equation}
where $\mathrm{MLP}_{\mathrm{qual}}$ is a lightweight two-layer bottleneck network.
We adopt a scalar design for efficiency and optimization stability, consistent with our IR-centric deployment goal. Here, $q$ is optimized for the detection objective and is used as a control signal for RGB guidance, rather than as a hand-crafted image-quality metric.
\paragraph{RGB suppression gate.}
The auxiliary contribution is explicitly suppressed by $w_{\mathrm{rgb}}(q)$, implemented as
$w_{\mathrm{rgb}}(q)=q$, such that unreliable RGB guidance is down-weighted via $w_{\mathrm{rgb}}(q)\cdot A_{in}$.
\paragraph{IR amplification gate.}
In parallel, we apply an inverse reliability gain to the IR stream:
\begin{equation}
\alpha(q)=\mathrm{clip}\!\big(1.5-q;\ 1.0,1.5\big),
\label{eq:ir_amplifier_new}
\end{equation}
which increases IR contribution when RGB is degraded. This simple clipped form is used as a default non-suppressive IR compensation rule; we do not assume the constant 1.5 to be uniquely optimal.
\paragraph{Multi-scale IR injection and fusion.}
For each scale, we align IR features by a channel adapter and apply a content gate:
\begin{equation}
F_k=\mathrm{CA}(C_k),\qquad
g_k=\sigma\!\Big(\mathrm{MLP}_{\mathrm{gate}}\big(\mathrm{GAP}(F_k)\big)\Big).
\end{equation}
Finally, QualGate fuses the suppressed auxiliary term with the amplified IR injection:
\begin{equation}
A_{out}=w_{\mathrm{rgb}}(q)\cdot A_{in}+\sum_{k=1}^{K}\alpha(q)\cdot g_k\cdot F_k.
\label{eq:qual_gate_fusion_new}
\end{equation}
A larger $q$ preserves more auxiliary guidance and keeps the IR gain close to nominal scale;
a smaller $q$ reduces the auxiliary contribution and increases the IR compensation, yielding more stable IR representation shaping for IR-only inference.
\paragraph{Discussion.}
This dual-path design is empirically necessary: removing either the suppression or amplification branch leads to consistent drops (Table~\ref{tab:qualgate_dissection}), and the learned $q$ exhibits task-oriented behavior under controlled RGB degradations (Table~\ref{tab:q_degradation}).
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{fig/fig3.pdf}
% \vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{
{Architecture of QualGate.}
It takes as input $K$ scales IR features $\{C_{k}\}_{k=1}^{K}$ and the auxiliary feature $A_{in}$, and targets a quality-aware fused output $A_{out}$. For fusion, the control branch predicts a scalar score $q$ for auxiliary guidance and compensates IR features accordingly based on $\alpha(q)$.}
\label{fig:qualgate}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure}
% \subsubsection{IRRefiner}
% \label{subsubsec:tip_gate}
% At each fusion site, the module receives an RGB base feature $F_{\mathrm{base}}^{\mathrm{RGB}} \in \mathbb{R}^{C\times H\times W}$ from the auxiliary pathway and a set of $K$ IR tips $\{F^{\mathrm{IR}}_{s_k}\}_{k=1}^{K}$ from multiple scales of the main pathway.
% IR tips are spatially resized and channel-aligned via $1{\times}1$ convolutions to match the RGB base, yielding aligned features $\{\hat{F}^{\mathrm{IR}}_{s_k}\}_{k=1}^{K}$.
% % \noindent\textbf{IRRefiner (scale-selective aggregation).}
% % Multi-scale IR features extracted at different depths are complementary, yet they can also exhibit scale-specific noise and redundancy.
% % To selectively consolidate reliable evidence, we introduce \emph{IRRefiner}, a content-aware gating module that assigns scale-wise importances to IR ``tips.''
% % Given aligned IR tips \(\{\hat{F}^{\mathrm{IR}}_{s_k}\}_{k=1}^{K}\), IRRefiner predicts normalized weights \(\boldsymbol{\alpha}\in[0,1]^K\) with \(\sum_{k=1}^{K}\alpha_k=1\), conditioned on local content, and computes
% % \[
% % F^{\mathrm{IR}}_{\mathrm{ref}}=\sum_{k=1}^{K}\alpha_k\,\hat{F}^{\mathrm{IR}}_{s_k}.
% % \]
% % This selective aggregation emphasizes informative scales while suppressing noisy or redundant contributions, yielding a refined IR representation.
% Multi-scale IR features from different network layers contain complementary information, yet they may also introduce noise or redundancy at certain scales.
% To selectively aggregate reliable multi-scale information, IRRefiner employs content-aware gating to adaptively weight contributions from different IR tip scales.
% For each aligned IR tip $\hat{F}^{\mathrm{IR}}_{s_k}$, we compute a scalar gate weight via global average pooling followed by a lightweight MLP:
% \begin{align}
% g_k &= \sigma\!\Big(\mathrm{MLP}\big(\mathrm{GAP}(\hat{F}^{\mathrm{IR}}_{s_k})\big)\Big) \in (0, 1), \label{eq:ir_refiner_gate}
% \end{align}
% where $\sigma(\cdot)$ is the sigmoid function and $\mathrm{MLP}$ is a two-layer bottleneck network ($C \to C/16 \to 1$).
% The refined IR representation is then computed as:
% \begin{equation}
% F^{\mathrm{IR}}_{\mathrm{ref}} = \sum_{k=1}^{K} g_k \cdot \hat{F}^{\mathrm{IR}}_{s_k}.
% \label{eq:ir_refiner_fusion}
% \end{equation}
% This gating mechanism suppresses noisy or less informative scales while amplifying reliable ones, enhancing robustness against intra-modal variations in IR features.
% \subsubsection{QualGate}
% \label{subsubsec:qual_gate}
% % While IRRefiner effectively refines multi-scale IR features, it treats the RGB base feature as equally reliable across all scenarios.
% RGB informativeness varies drastically across training samples: it remains rich and informative in daylight conditions but degrades significantly under low-light, fog, or motion blur scenarios.
% To address this quality variation, QualGate builds upon IRRefiner's gating mechanism and introduces RGB quality estimation to adaptively regulate cross-modal fusion weights.
% We first estimate a scalar quality score $q \in (0, 1)$ via:
% \begin{align}
% q &= \sigma\!\Big(\mathrm{MLP}_{\mathrm{qual}}\big(\mathrm{GAP}(F_{\mathrm{base}}^{\mathrm{RGB}})\big)\Big), \label{eq:quality_score}
% \end{align}
% where $\mathrm{MLP}_{\mathrm{qual}}$ is a two-layer bottleneck network similar to that in IRRefiner.
% $q \approx 1$ indicates reliable RGB (clear, well-lit conditions), while $q \approx 0$ signals degraded conditions (nighttime, fog, motion blur).
% We adopt a scalar design for efficiency and optimization stability~\cite{pascanu2013difficulty}.
% The fusion then adaptively weights RGB and IR contributions based on the estimated quality:
% \begin{align}
% h_k &= \sigma\!\Big(\mathrm{MLP}_{\mathrm{gate}, k}\big(\mathrm{GAP}(\hat{F}^{\mathrm{IR}}_{s_k})\big)\Big), \label{eq:qual_tip_gate} \\
% \alpha(q) &= \mathrm{clip}\!\big(1.5 - q\,;\ 1.0, 1.5\big), \label{eq:ir_amplifier} \\
% F_{\mathrm{fused}} &= q \cdot F_{\mathrm{base}}^{\mathrm{RGB}} + \sum_{k=1}^{K} \alpha(q) \cdot h_k \cdot \hat{F}^{\mathrm{IR}}_{s_k}, \label{eq:qual_gate_fusion}
% \end{align}
% where $h_k$ is a per-tip gate for IR features and $\alpha(q)$ is an IR amplification factor inversely proportional to RGB quality.
% When RGB is reliable ($q \approx 1$), it contributes fully to the fusion while IR features are integrated at nominal scale ($\alpha \approx 1.0$).
% When RGB is degraded ($q \approx 0$), its contribution is suppressed while IR features are amplified ($\alpha \to 1.5$), preventing noise injection and maintaining strong supervision signals.
% This adaptive weighting mechanism ensures that cross-modal supervision remains effective across varying RGB quality conditions, enabling robust representation learning for the IR branch.
% \subsubsection{Quality-Aware CBFuse: Cross-Modal Adaptive Fusion}
% \label{subsubsec:qa_cbfuse}
% Quality-Aware CBFuse directly addresses the gradient instability problem by dynamically adjusting fusion weights based on RGB reliability.
% The key insight is that RGB informativeness varies drastically across training samples—it remains rich in daylight but degrades under low-light, fog, or motion blur.
% We first estimate a scalar quality score $q \in (0, 1)$ via:
% \begin{align}
% q &= \sigma\!\Big(\mathrm{MLP}_{\mathrm{qual}}\big(\mathrm{GAP}(F_{\mathrm{base}}^{\mathrm{RGB}})\big)\Big), \label{eq:quality_score}
% \end{align}
% where $q \approx 1$ signals reliable RGB (clear, well-lit) and $q \approx 0$ signals degraded conditions (nighttime, fog).
% We use a scalar design for efficiency and optimization stability~\cite{pascanu2013difficulty}.
% The fusion then adaptively weights RGB and IR contributions:
% \begin{align}
% h_k &= \sigma\!\Big(\mathrm{MLP}_{\mathrm{gate}, k}\big(\mathrm{GAP}(\hat{F}^{\mathrm{IR}}_{s_k})\big)\Big), \label{eq:qa_tip_gate} \\
% \alpha(q) &= \mathrm{clip}\!\big(1.5 - q\,;\ 1.0, 1.5\big), \label{eq:ir_amplifier} \\
% F_{\mathrm{fused}} &= q \cdot F_{\mathrm{base}}^{\mathrm{RGB}} + \sum_{k=1}^{K} \alpha(q) \cdot h_k \cdot \hat{F}^{\mathrm{IR}}_{s_k}, \label{eq:qa_fusion}
% \end{align}
% where $h_k$ is a per-tip gate and $\alpha(q)$ is an IR amplification factor inversely proportional to RGB quality.
% When RGB is reliable ($q \approx 1$), it contributes fully while IR contributes at nominal scale ($\alpha \approx 1.0$).
% When RGB is degraded ($q \approx 0$), its contribution is suppressed while IR is amplified ($\alpha \to 1.5$), preventing noise injection and maintaining strong supervision signals.
% This mechanism directly tackles the gradient corruption issue from \S\ref{sec:problem_statement}, ensuring the gradient flow is dominated by clean IR signals rather than noisy RGB terms.
% \paragraph{Computational overhead.}
% Each Quality-Aware CBFuse module adds only $K+1$ lightweight MLPs (each with $< 10\mathrm{K}$ parameters) to the auxiliary branch.
% Since the auxiliary branch is removed at inference, the deployed model incurs \emph{zero} additional FLOPs or parameters compared to a single-stream IR detector.
% During training, the overhead is modest: on the GELAN-C backbone (25.3M parameters), the three fusion modules contribute 186K parameters (0.73\% increase) and 0.8 GFLOPs (2.1\% of the 38.2 GFLOPs total training cost).
% This negligible overhead is fully amortized at deployment, where the model operates with identical efficiency to a single-modal IR detector.
% \paragraph{Summary of fusion modules.}
% We propose two novel fusion operators—DynamicCBFuse (intra-modal gating) and Quality-Aware CBFuse (cross-modal adaptive weighting)—that extend the baseline CBFuse from YOLOv9 with adaptive mechanisms.
% By default, we deploy Quality-Aware CBFuse at all three fusion sites (A3, A4, A5) for maximum robustness.
% Ablation studies in \S\ref{sec:ablation} demonstrate that both modules contribute to performance gains, with Quality-Aware CBFuse providing the largest improvement by directly addressing the gradient instability issue.
\subsection{InfraNet}
To avoid degraded RGB contaminating informative IR features and inducing negative transfer, we propose \textbf{InfraNet}, a quality-aware RGB guided framework based on QualGate.
% By design, it adopts a dual-stream architecture (\ie, RGB branch, and IR branch) with a shared neck and detection head. The RGB branch provides reliability weighted auxiliary supervision through quality aware fusion during training, and can be optionally discarded during testing.
InfraNet is a plug-and-play design for common multi-scale detectors such as ResNet~\cite{he2015deep} and YOLOv5/v8/v12~\cite{jocher2022ultralytics}, by preserving the dual-branch structure and strategically placing QualGate modules at corresponding multi-scale fusion sites.
{Based on InfraNet, we design
two deployment configurations: (1) InfraNet-IR, a lightweight IR-only architecture for efficient single-modal inference, and (2) InfraNet-RGB-IR, a higher-capacity dual-branch architecture for RGB--IR fusion. Both configurations utilize QualGate modules for quality-aware feature processing.
% , but employ different network structures optimized for their respective deployment scenarios.
% In the following, we use \emph{InfraNet-IR} to denote the IR-only architecture illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:architecture}, and \emph{InfraNet-RGB-IR} for the architecture used for RGB--IR fusion.
}
{Fig.~\ref{fig:architecture} illustrates InfraNet-IR, which built on YOLOv9 components (\ie, Conv, C2f, SPPELAN, RepNCSPELAN4)~\cite{wang2024yolov9}.} Given paired RGB images $I_{\text{RGB}}$ and infrared images $I_{\text{IR}}$, our InfraNet adopts two asymmetric pathways: a main IR branch ({black arrows}) and an auxiliary RGB branch ({{blue arrows}}).
The IR pathway encodes multi-scale features $\{P_3,P_4,P_5\}$ for detection via successive Conv+C2f and SPPELAN stages, producing hierarchical representations.
Meanwhile, the RGB pathway extracts base features through a lightweight stem and a RepNCSPELAN4 block.
At three designated fusion sites, the QualGate modules adaptively integrate RGB cues with the corresponding IR features, yielding $\{A_3,A_4,A_5\}$. The RGB guidance strength is regulated by the learned control score.
The fused features are then processed by RepNCSPELAN4 blocks and passed to the detection head.
% During training, detect head processes both feature sets ($\{A_3,A_4,A_5\}$ and $\{P_3,P_4,P_5\}$) for dual-branch supervision, and can switch to using only the main IR features ($\{P_3,P_4,P_5\}$) during inference, naturally eliminating the auxiliary branch dependency.
{
For InfraNet-IR, the detection head processes both feature sets ($\{A_3,A_4,A_5\}$ and $\{P_3,P_4,P_5\}$) during training, a lightweight network processes only IR features ($\{P_3,P_4,P_5\}$) during inference, without requiring RGB input or fusion components.
}
For the design of InfraNet-RGB-IR, we retain the full dual-stream backbone–neck with RGB–IR inputs and multi-scale QualGate fusion during inference, where RGB and IR flows jointly produce and fuse the feature maps, resulting in a higher-capacity RGB–IR detector than the pruned InfraNet-IR variant. More details can be found in the supplementary.
% \tr{detection head seems use $\{A_3,A_4,A_5\}$ and $\{P_3,P_4,P_5\}$ at the same time? so how to remove?}
% During inference, the RGB branch can be removed, resulting in an efficient IR-only detector with no extra computational overhead.
% the dual-stream backbone extracts modality-specific features.
% The infrared pathway forms a multi-scale hierarchy $\{P_3,P_4,P_5\}$ for detection, while the auxiliary pathway fuses RGB cues with infrared tips through the quality-aware fusion mechanism, yielding $\{A_3,A_4,A_5\}$ that supervise the auxiliary head.
% The RGB stream, serving as an auxiliary pathway, processes $f^2_{\text{RGB}}$ through a series of \texttt{RepNCSPELAN4} blocks to extract a base feature $F_{\mathrm{base}}^{\mathrm{RGB}} \in \mathbb{R}^{C \times H \times W}$, which serves as the RGB base feature for cross-modal fusion.
% Concurrently, the main IR stream processes $f^2_{\text{IR}}$ through its backbone, consisting of convolutional layers and \texttt{C2f} blocks, generating multi-scale features $\{C_3, C_4, C_5\}$ at different spatial resolutions.
% These IR backbone features are then routed to the auxiliary branch via \texttt{CBLinear} modules, creating IR tip features $\{T_3, T_4, T_5\}$ that will be used in fusion.
% The IR backbone features also feed into the neck module, which produces refined multi-scale IR features $\{P_3, P_4, P_5\}$ through \texttt{SPPELAN} and \texttt{RepNCSPELAN4} blocks, corresponding to small, medium, and large object scales, respectively.
% The RGB base feature $F_{\mathrm{base}}^{\mathrm{RGB}}$ and the IR tips from different scales are then fed into a cascade of three \emph{QualGate} modules, strategically placed at different scales (A3, A4, A5) within the network's neck.
% At each fusion site, the QualGate module receives the RGB base feature and a set of IR tips from the corresponding scales: A3 uses IR tips from $\{T_3, T_4, T_5\}$ (three tips corresponding to backbone features $C_3, C_4, C_5$), A4 uses tips from $\{T_4, T_5\}$ (two tips), and A5 uses a single tip from $T_5$.
% Each QualGate module performs adaptive cross-modal fusion by dynamically assessing RGB informativeness and regulating the fusion process, as detailed in \S\ref{subsec:fusion_modules}.
% The outputs of these QualGate modules $\{A_3, A_4, A_5\}$, along with the parallel multi-scale IR features $\{P_3, P_4, P_5\}$ from the main branch, are subsequently passed to the detection head for generating final object detection results.
% During training, both branches are jointly optimized with independent loss supervision: the main IR branch uses features $\{P_3, P_4, P_5\}$, while the auxiliary RGB branch uses fused features $\{A_3, A_4, A_5\}$, allowing complementary detection strategies (\S\ref{subsec:loss}).
% At inference, the entire RGB auxiliary branch—including the backbone, QualGate modules, and associated parameters—is completely removed, enabling efficient IR-only deployment while maintaining robust detection performance.
% In the following sections, we introduce the QualGate fusion modules in \S\ref{subsec:fusion_modules} and the dual-branch training strategy in \S\ref{subsec:loss}.
% \subsection{Dual-Branch Training}
% \label{subsec:loss}
% Both branches are equipped with independent detection heads following the YOLOv9 architecture~\cite{wang2024yolov9} and are trained jointly from scratch.
% Each branch is supervised with the standard YOLO loss (combining box regression, classification, and distribution focal loss), and we perform Task-Aligned Assignment (TAL) independently for each branch to allow complementary detection strategies.
% The total training objective combines both branches with asymmetric weights:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathcal{L} = w_{\mathrm{main}}\, \mathcal{L}^{(\mathrm{main})}_{\mathrm{det}} + w_{\mathrm{aux}}\, \mathcal{L}^{(\mathrm{aux})}_{\mathrm{det}},
% \label{eq:total_loss}
% \end{equation}
% where we set $w_{\mathrm{main}} = 1.0$ and $w_{\mathrm{aux}} = 0.25$.
% This $4:1$ ratio ensures the main IR branch dominates optimization (for robust IR-only inference) while the auxiliary branch provides sufficient supervision signals to enrich IR feature learning.
% During training, the full dual-branch network is optimized end-to-end for 500 epochs using SGD with cosine learning rate schedule and standard YOLO augmentation.
% At inference, the entire auxiliary branch is removed, yielding a pure IR detector with identical efficiency to single-modal baselines.
% \subsection{Why IR-Dominant Fusion Works: An Information-Theoretic Analysis}
% \label{subsec:why_it_works}
% We provide theoretical justification through information theory for why training with RGB auxiliary supervision but deploying with IR-only inference yields superior performance.
% \paragraph{Single-modal information bottleneck.}
% Let $X_{\mathrm{IR}}$, $X_{\mathrm{RGB}}$ denote input modalities, $Z_{\mathrm{IR}}$ the IR latent representation, and $Y$ the detection target.
% Traditional single-modal IR training is constrained by the data processing inequality~\cite{cover2006elements}:
% \begin{equation}
% I(Z_{\mathrm{IR}}; Y) \;\leq\; I(X_{\mathrm{IR}}; Y),
% \label{eq:dpi_bound}
% \end{equation}
% where $I(\cdot; \cdot)$ denotes mutual information.
% When thermal contrast is low, $I(X_{\mathrm{IR}}; Y)$ is small, fundamentally limiting IR-only detector accuracy.
% \paragraph{Cross-modal information enrichment.}
% Our dual-branch training (Eq.~\eqref{eq:total_loss}) optimizes IR parameters $\theta_{\mathrm{IR}}$ with both IR-only loss $\mathcal{L}^{(\mathrm{main})}$ and auxiliary loss $\mathcal{L}^{(\mathrm{aux})}$ that accesses RGB features via Quality-Aware CBFuse.
% Critically, auxiliary gradients $\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}^{(\mathrm{aux})}}{\partial \theta_{\mathrm{IR}}}$ depend on $X_{\mathrm{RGB}}$, guiding $\theta_{\mathrm{IR}}$ to encode semantic patterns discoverable from joint distribution $(X_{\mathrm{IR}}, X_{\mathrm{RGB}})$ but harder to learn from $X_{\mathrm{IR}}$ alone.
% The learned IR encoder thus satisfies:
% \begin{equation}
% I(Z_{\mathrm{IR}}; Y) \;>\; I(\tilde{Z}_{\mathrm{IR}}; Y),
% \label{eq:info_gain}
% \end{equation}
% where $\tilde{Z}_{\mathrm{IR}}$ denotes single-modal baseline representations.
% Once trained, these enriched features are extractable from $X_{\mathrm{IR}}$ alone at inference, breaking the single-modal bound.
% \paragraph{Quality-aware noise filtering.}
% When RGB degrades (nighttime, fog), naive fusion introduces noise.
% Model RGB as $X_{\mathrm{RGB}} = X^{\mathrm{clean}}_{\mathrm{RGB}} + \epsilon$ with noise variance $\sigma^2$ inversely proportional to quality.
% Mutual information decomposes as~\cite{cover2006elements}:
% \begin{equation}
% I(X_{\mathrm{RGB}}; Y) = I(X^{\mathrm{clean}}_{\mathrm{RGB}}; Y) - I(\epsilon; Y \,|\, X^{\mathrm{clean}}_{\mathrm{RGB}}).
% \label{eq:noisy_mi}
% \end{equation}
% When $\sigma^2 \to \infty$, $I(X_{\mathrm{RGB}}; Y) \to 0$, and RGB gradients destabilize training.
% Our Quality-Aware CBFuse adaptively weights features:
% \begin{equation}
% q \;\approx\; \frac{I(X_{\mathrm{RGB}}; Y)}{I(X_{\mathrm{RGB}}; Y) + \gamma},
% \label{eq:quality_info}
% \end{equation}
% where MLP-estimated quality score $q$ approximates RGB's information reliability.
% As $q \to 0$, RGB contribution is suppressed while IR amplification $\alpha(q) \to 1.5$ maintains supervision strength (Eq.~\eqref{eq:qa_fusion}).
% This bounds gradient variance:
% \begin{equation}
% \mathbb{E}\Big[\Big\|\frac{\partial \mathcal{L}^{(\mathrm{aux})}}{\partial \theta_{\mathrm{IR}}}\Big\|^2\Big] \;\leq\; C \cdot \mathbb{E}[q^2] \sigma^2_{\mathrm{RGB}} + \mathbb{E}[\alpha^2] \sigma^2_{\mathrm{IR}},
% \label{eq:variance_bound}
% \end{equation}
% where $q^2$ down-weights RGB noise when quality drops, ensuring stable optimization.
% \paragraph{Summary.}
% Information theory reveals two synergistic mechanisms: \textbf{(i)} auxiliary gradients enrich IR beyond single-modal bounds (Eq.~\eqref{eq:info_gain}); \textbf{(ii)} quality-aware gating filters unreliable RGB (Eq.~\eqref{eq:quality_info}), stabilizing training.
% At inference, learned IR encoder achieves superior performance without RGB, surpassing both fusion methods (vulnerable to RGB degradation) and IR baselines (limited by Eq.~\eqref{eq:dpi_bound}).
\section{Training and Inference}
\label{sec:training_inference}
% \section{Training and Inference}
% \label{sec:training_inference}
\subsection{Training}
\label{subsec:training}
Given paired inputs $(I_{\mathrm{IR}}, I_{\mathrm{RGB}})$, the InfraNet extracts a multi-scale hierarchy $\{P_3,P_4,P_5\}$ from the main branch and $\{A_3,A_4,A_5\}$ through the quality-aware fusion mechanism. Based on the detection head, standard detection losses (\ie, box regression, classification, and distribution-based localization) are employed under task-aligned assignment at each scale.
% We adopt a paired RGB--infrared training paradigm with two asymmetric pathways: an infrared-dominant main branch that produces deployment predictions, and an RGB-guided auxiliary branch that is used only during training.
% Given paired inputs $(I_{\mathrm{IR}}, I_{\mathrm{RGB}})$, the dual-stream backbone extracts modality-specific features.
% The infrared pathway forms a multi-scale hierarchy $\{P_3,P_4,P_5\}$ for detection, while the auxiliary pathway fuses RGB cues with infrared tips through the quality-aware fusion mechanism, yielding $\{A_3,A_4,A_5\}$ that supervise the auxiliary head.
% Both heads are supervised with standard detection losses (box regression, classification, and distribution-based localization) under task-aligned assignment at each scale.
Let $\mathcal{L}^{(\mathrm{main})}_{\mathrm{det}}$ and $\mathcal{L}^{(\mathrm{aux})}_{\mathrm{det}}$ denote the main and auxiliary branch detection losses, respectively.
For both architectural variants (\ie, InfraNet-IR and InfraNet-RGB-IR), we employ the same asymmetric weights,
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L} = \mathcal{L}^{(\mathrm{main})}_{\mathrm{det}} \;+\; w_{\mathrm{aux}}\, \mathcal{L}^{(\mathrm{aux})}_{\mathrm{det}},
\label{eq:total_loss}
\end{equation}
with $w_{\mathrm{aux}}$ set to 0.25 by default.
This choice ensures that optimisation is dominated by the infrared pathway, while the auxiliary branch provides reliability-adaptive guidance that enhances infrared representations.
% Unless otherwise specified, training uses large-scale data augmentation, cosine learning-rate decay, mixed-precision computation, gradient clipping, and an exponential moving average of model weights.
% All settings are kept consistent across datasets for fair comparison.
\subsection{Inference}
\label{subsec:inference}
% Due to the flexibility of our InfraNet, we can adopt two testing settings. In both settings, the prediction is produced by the detection head, without retraining or other architectural surgery.
% \noindent\textbf{ (1) IR-Only Setting.} In this setting, we remove the RGB auxiliary branch and all fusion operators, retaining only the infrared backbone-neck hierarchy $\{P_s\}$ and the detection head.
% % Because the auxiliary pathway is used purely to regularise gradients, pruning it after optimisation does not alter the infrared parameters or their receptive fields.
% \noindent\textbf{ (2) Dual-Modality Setting.}
% Taking both paired RGB and IR as input, we adopt another more complex dual-stream backbone. QualGate continues to inject reliability-aware RGB cues.
{
The two architectural variants, InfraNet-IR and InfraNet-RGB-IR, follow different inference settings.
% InfraNet is instantiated as two separate detectors tailored to different deployment scenarios, and we report results for both inference configurations using their own trained models.
\noindent\textbf{InfraNet-IR.} During training, InfraNet-IR takes paired RGB and IR inputs, where RGB serves as privileged auxiliary guidance for shaping the IR representation. During inference, only IR is used for prediction: the RGB auxiliary branch and all fusion operators are removed, and only the infrared backbone-neck hierarchy $\{P_s\}$ and the detection head are retained.
% with a single infrared backbone--neck hierarchy $\{P_s\}$ and the detection head. During training, an auxiliary RGB branch and QualGate modules are attached only to provide reliability-aware supervision, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:architecture}. At deployment, InfraNet-IR receives only infrared images, and neither the RGB branch nor any fusion modules are present in the instantiated network.
\noindent\textbf{InfraNet-RGB-IR.} InfraNet-RGB-IR adopts
a dual-stream backbone that processes both RGB and IR inputs during training and inference. QualGate continues to regulate RGB--IR interactions at multiple scales.
% and integrates them via QualGate at multiple scales during both training and inference.
}
% For the compact regime, removing the auxiliary branch is equivalent to slicing the computation graph before the fusion sites, so no residual RGB dependency remains.
% For the high-capacity regime, the pipeline matches the training forward pass, including RGB quality estimation and IR amplification, but runs without back-propagation.
% The two configurations therefore trade accuracy for efficiency without requiring retraining or architectural surgery.
% \subsection{Algorithm: End-to-End Workflow}
% \label{subsec:algorithm}
% Algorithm~\ref{alg:infranet} summarises the end-to-end workflow and matches the dataflow in Fig.~\ref{fig:architecture}.
% During training, a dual-stream backbone extracts modality-specific features.
% The IR stream yields multi-scale features $\{C_s\}_{s\in\{3,4,5\}}$, which are linearly projected by \textsc{CBLinear} into tip features $\{T_s\}$ for fusion.
% The RGB stream produces a base representation $R$.
% At three fusion sites, a reliability-aware gate (\textsc{QualGate}) estimates RGB quality and modulates its contribution, yielding fused features $\{A_s\}$.
% The detector heads then generate auxiliary (RGB-guided) and main (IR-dominant) predictions for asymmetric supervision.
% At inference (IR-only deployment), the RGB branch and fusion blocks are pruned; the model keeps only the IR backbone–neck–head path followed by NMS.
% \begin{algorithm}[t]
% \caption{InfraNet: Training (Dual-Stream) and Inference (IR-only)}
% \label{alg:infranet}
% \SetKwInOut{Input}{Require}
% \SetKwInOut{Output}{Ensure}
% \Input{Paired mini-batch $(I_{\mathrm{IR}}, I_{\mathrm{RGB}}, Y)$}
% \Output{Main-branch detections $\hat{Y}_{\mathrm{main}}$}
% \BlankLine
% \textbf{Training phase}\;
% \ForEach{$(I_{\mathrm{IR}}, I_{\mathrm{RGB}}, Y)$}{
% $F_{\mathrm{IR}}, F_{\mathrm{RGB}} \leftarrow \Phi_{\text{dual}}(I_{\mathrm{IR}}, I_{\mathrm{RGB}})$\;
% $\{C_s\}_{s\in\{3,4,5\}} \leftarrow \mathcal{B}_{\text{IR}}(F_{\mathrm{IR}})$;\quad $\{P_s\} \leftarrow \mathcal{N}_{\text{IR}}(\{C_s\})$\;
% $\{T_s\} \leftarrow \mathrm{CBLinear}(\{C_s\})$;\quad $R \leftarrow \mathcal{G}_{\text{RGB}}(F_{\mathrm{RGB}})$\;
% $\{A_s\} \leftarrow \Psi_{\text{QualGate}}(R,\{T_s\})$ \tcp*[r]{A3/A4/A5}
% $(\hat{Y}_{\mathrm{aux}}, \hat{Y}_{\mathrm{main}}) \leftarrow \Delta_{\text{dual}}(\{A_s\}, \{P_s\})$\;
% $\theta \leftarrow \theta - \eta\,\nabla_{\theta}\!\Big(w_{\mathrm{main}}\mathcal{L}^{(\mathrm{main})}_{\mathrm{det}} + w_{\mathrm{aux}}\mathcal{L}^{(\mathrm{aux})}_{\mathrm{det}}\Big)$\;
% }
% \BlankLine
% \textbf{Inference (IR-only)}\;
% $F_{\mathrm{IR}} \leftarrow \Phi_{\text{IR}}(I_{\mathrm{IR}})$;\quad $\{C_s\} \leftarrow \mathcal{B}_{\text{IR}}(F_{\mathrm{IR}})$;\quad $\{P_s\} \leftarrow \mathcal{N}_{\text{IR}}(\{C_s\})$\;
% $\hat{Y}_{\mathrm{main}} \leftarrow \Delta_{\text{IR}}(\{P_s\})$;\quad $\hat{Y}_{\mathrm{main}} \leftarrow \mathrm{NMS}(\hat{Y}_{\mathrm{main}})$\;
% \Return $\hat{Y}_{\mathrm{main}}$\;
% \end{algorithm}
% \noindent\textbf{Notation.}
% $I_{\mathrm{IR}}, I_{\mathrm{RGB}}$: infrared and RGB inputs;
% $\Phi_{\text{dual}}$: dual-stream backbone feature extractor;
% $\mathcal{B}_{\text{IR}}$: IR backbone producing multi-scale features $\{C_3,C_4,C_5\}$;
% $\mathrm{CBLinear}$: linear projection from $\{C_s\}$ to fusion tips $\{T_s\}$;
% $\mathcal{G}_{\text{RGB}}$: RGB stream producing the base representation $R$;
% $\Psi_{\text{QualGate}}$: quality-aware gate that fuses $(R,\{T_s\})$ into $\{A_s\}$ at sites A3/A4/A5;
% $\mathcal{N}_{\text{IR}}$: IR neck generating $\{P_3,P_4,P_5\}$;
% $\Delta_{\text{dual}}$: dual-head detector yielding $(\hat{Y}_{\mathrm{aux}}, \hat{Y}_{\mathrm{main}})$ during training;
% $\Delta_{\text{IR}}$: main IR head used at inference;
% $\mathcal{L}^{(\cdot)}_{\mathrm{det}}$: standard detection loss (TAL, DFL, etc.);
% $w_{\mathrm{main}},w_{\mathrm{aux}}$: asymmetric loss weights; $\eta$: learning rate.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}
\subsection{Experimental Setup}
\label{subsec:setup}
\paragraph{Datasets.}
% We evaluate on four RGB-IR benchmarks:
% \textbf{LLVIP}~\cite{jia2021llvip} contains 15,488 paired images for pedestrian detection;
% \textbf{FLIR-Aligned}~\cite{flir2018} comprises 5,142 pairs for automotive thermal detection with 3 categories;
% \textbf{M$^3$FD}~\cite{liu2022target} provides 4,200 pairs for 6-class detection in diverse conditions;
% \textbf{DroneVehicle}~\cite{sun2022drone} offers 28,439 pairs for UAV-based 5-class vehicle detection.
We evaluate on four established RGB–IR benchmarks: \textbf{LLVIP}~\cite{jia2021llvip} (15{,}488 aligned image pairs; pedestrian detection), \textbf{FLIR-Aligned}~\cite{flir2018} (5{,}142 aligned pairs; automotive detection with three classes), \textbf{M$^3$FD}~\cite{liu2022target} (4{,}200 pairs spanning six classes under diverse conditions), and \textbf{DroneVehicle}~\cite{sun2022drone} (28{,}439 UAV-captured pairs; five-class vehicle detection).
\paragraph{Implementation.}
All experiments are conducted on a single NVIDIA RTX 4090 GPU with PyTorch.
Models are trained for 300 epochs using SGD (momentum 0.937, weight decay $5{\times}10^{-4}$) with cosine learning rate decay ($10^{-2}\rightarrow10^{-4}$) and batch size 32 under the single-GPU setting.
Dual-branch training employs $w_{\mathrm{aux}}=0.25$.
Standard YOLO augmentations (Mosaic, MixUp, HSV, horizontal flip, scaling) are applied, with geometric transforms synchronized across modalities to preserve spatial alignment.
We evaluate the models based on InfraNet-IR and InfraNet-RGB-IR, to demonstrate the flexibility of our framework, separately.
% both IR-only and dual-modality inference to demonstrate the flexibility of our framework.
{For simplicity, we use Ours (IR) to represent InfraNet-IR, and Ours (RGB-IR) to represent InfraNet-RGB-IR.
% In practice, these two configurations are implemented and optimized as two independent detectors (InfraNet-IR and InfraNet-RGB-IR) without any weight sharing. Detailed network configurations for the RGB-IR (dual-modality) detectors are given in the Appendix; “*” marks dual-branch inference models in tables.
}
This ensures consistent experimental conditions across all main comparisons and ablation studies.
% We evaluate two deployment configurations to demonstrate framework flexibility:
% \textbf{(i)} \emph{IR-only variants} are trained with dual RGB-IR modalities but deploy with \emph{single-modal IR inference}—the auxiliary RGB branch is completely removed at deployment, achieving strong performance with zero computational overhead;
% \textbf{(ii)} \emph{RGB-IR variants} maintain \emph{dual-modal fusion} at both training and inference, leveraging RGB and IR jointly for maximum accuracy, with optional module pruning to balance performance and efficiency.
% All models use 640$\times$640 input resolution.
\paragraph{Metrics.}
We report standard metrics $mAP_{50}$ (IoU=0.5) and $mAP$ (IoU=0.5:0.95).
Besides, for FLIR, we report additional Precision, Recall, and F1-score; for
M$^3$FD and DroneVehicle, we report per-class $AP_{50}$.
\paragraph{Training overhead and convergence.}
QualGate is lightweight, implemented as two-layer MLPs.
For example, during training, InfraNet-IR (YOLOv8) introduces an auxiliary RGB branch (26.1M parameters) for privileged guidance, while at inference it keeps an IR-only model (28.2M) with \emph{no extra deployment cost}.
In practice, the added training overhead is acceptable---the model can be trained on a single consumer-grade GPU.
Moreover, under the standard 300-epoch protocol, our method converges stably and typically reaches a stable performance regime around 130 epochs.
\subsection{Comparison with State-of-the-Art Methods}
\label{subsec:sota}
\paragraph{LLVIP.}
% Table~\ref{tab:example5} presents pedestrian detection results on the LLVIP dataset.
% Our method establishes new state-of-the-art with \textbf{69.8\% mAP} (YOLOv5-RGB-IR), surpassing the previous best WaveMamba (66.0\%, YOLOv8) by \textbf{+3.8\%} absolute (+5.8\% relative)—the largest improvement on this challenging low-light pedestrian detection benchmark.
% Our RGB-IR variants demonstrate consistent excellence: ResNet50-RGB-IR achieves 69.5\% mAP, YOLOv8-RGB-IR reaches 68.8\% mAP, and YOLOv12-RGB-IR attains 68.0\% mAP, all substantially outperforming WaveMamba's dual-modal fusion.
% Remarkably, even our IR-only inference variants deliver competitive performance: ResNet34-IR achieves 69.0\% mAP (+3.0\% over WaveMamba), YOLOv8-IR reaches 68.8\% mAP (+2.8\%), and YOLOv5-IR attains 68.1\% mAP (+2.1\%), all while incurring \emph{zero} additional computational cost compared to single-modal IR detectors—strongly validating our auxiliary supervision paradigm.
% While WaveMamba attains higher $mAP_{50}$ (98.3\%) on coarse localization (IoU=0.5), our method excels at stringent IoU thresholds (mAP$_{50:95}$), indicating superior bounding box quality—critical for downstream tracking and re-identification tasks in low-light surveillance scenarios.
\input{tab/llvip}
Table~\ref{tab:example5} presents pedestrian detection results on the LLVIP dataset. Our method achieves strong performance across different backbone architectures. Specifically, our RGB--IR variants attain \textbf{70.5\% mAP} (YOLOv8) and \textbf{70.6\% mAP} (YOLOv12), improving over the strong recent method WaveMamba (66.0\%). Notably, our IR-only deployment also demonstrates strong performance, with ResNet50-IR achieving 68.4\% mAP while requiring no additional computational cost at inference, thereby validating the effectiveness of our auxiliary supervision approach.
\input{tab/flir}
\input{tab/droneV}
\paragraph{FLIR-Aligned.}
Table~\ref{tab:example6} presents automotive thermal detection results on the FLIR-Aligned dataset. Our method achieves strong performance across multiple metrics: YOLOv5-RGB-IR attains the highest recall (81.8\%), F1-score (83.3\%), and mAP$_{50}$ (89.5\%), while YOLOv12-RGB-IR achieves the best mAP (55.8\%). Notably, our IR-only variants demonstrate superior efficiency: YOLOv12-IR requires only 24.7M parameters and ResNet50-IR achieves 9.4ms inference time, substantially outperforming competing fusion methods while maintaining competitive accuracy. This validates our auxiliary supervision paradigm that achieves strong performance without deployment overhead.
% \input{tab/flir}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{fig/detection.pdf}
% \vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{
Visualization of detection results of several cross-modality object detection methods on M$^3$FD dataset. InfraNet-IR produces tighter bounding boxes, fewer false positives, and more consistent detections across diverse illumination conditions. Unlike prior methods (SuperFusion, TarDAL, CFT, FusionMamba), which often suffer from RGB degradation and background leakage, InfraNet-IR maintains robust localization by relying on IR-dominant features enhanced through quality-aware supervision. GT annotations are provided in the last column.
}
\label{fig:detection_result}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\end{figure*}
% \paragraph{M$^3$FD.}
% Table~\ref{tab:m3fd_sota_comparison} presents 6-class multimodal detection results on the M$^3$FD dataset.
% Our YOLOv12-RGB-IR matches state-of-the-art at \textbf{64.4\% mAP}, equaling WaveMamba while offering superior deployment flexibility: IR-only variants use single-modal IR inference (zero overhead), while RGB-IR variants enable dual-modal fusion for maximum accuracy.
% Per-class analysis reveals category-specific strengths across challenging categories: \textbf{Bus} 96.5\% $AP_{50}$ (rank 1st), \textbf{People} 89.6\% (1st), \textbf{Lamp} 86.2\% (1st)—the most challenging small-object category where our hierarchical multi-scale IR tip aggregation excels—and \textbf{Motorcycle} 81.3\%.
% Notably, our QualGate achieves competitive \textbf{Truck} detection (91.5\%), rivaling fusion-based TSJNet (89.3\%) \emph{without} requiring RGB at inference.
% Remarkably consistent performance across diverse architectures (63.1--64.4\% mAP, $\pm$1.3\% variance) validates framework robustness and generality.
% \input{tab/M3FD}
\input{tab/m3fd_4}
\paragraph{DroneVehicle.}
Table~\ref{tab:example4} presents UAV-based 5-class vehicle detection results on the DroneVehicle dataset.
Our YOLOv12-IR achieves the best results among the compared methods with \textbf{84.7\% $mAP_{50}$} and \textbf{63.9\% mAP}, surpassing WaveMamba (79.8\%/60.5\%) by substantial margins of \textbf{+4.9\%/ +3.4\%} (+6.1\%/+5.6\% relative)—the largest absolute gains across all datasets.
Per-class analysis shows particularly strong performance on challenging small-object categories: \textbf{Car} 98.1\% $AP_{50}$ (rank 1st), \textbf{Bus} 97.3\% (1st), \textbf{Freight-car} 77.7\% (+9.2\% over WaveMamba), \textbf{Van} 69.3\% (+4.8\%).
These substantial small-object improvements stem from our hierarchical multi-scale IR tip aggregation: at the finest detection scale A3, fusing P3/P4/P5 features provides robust representations resilient to RGB degradation from atmospheric scattering at high altitudes—a critical advantage for aerial
% \input{tab/m3fd_4}
\noindent imaging where RGB visibility is severely compromised by weather, haze, and altitude-induced degradation.
% \input{tab/droneV}
% \input{tab/m3fd_4}
\paragraph{M$^3$FD.}
%我们首先在M$^3$FD数据集上进行了验证，具体结果见附录所示。为了更进一步分析我们模型在黑夜和复杂环境下的性能，我们在M$^3$FD's four environmental subsets: day, overcast, night, and challenge.上进行了实验。如Table~\ref{tab:m3fd_4}所示。
We first evaluate our model on the M$^3$FD benchmark, and complete quantitative results are provided in the Appendix.
To further characterize performance under different illumination conditions, we also report results on the commonly used Day, Overcast, Night, and Challenge subsets of M$^3$FD.
As shown in Table~\ref{tab:m3fd_4}, InfraNet obtains strong results across these subsets, especially in night scenes where RGB visibility is severely compromised.
Since many recent RGB--IR detection methods do not report results under exactly the same subset protocol, Table~\ref{tab:m3fd_4} is used as a diagnostic comparison rather than an exhaustive current-SOTA ranking.
The IR-only variants also maintain strong night performance, indicating that RGB-guided training can improve the IR representation without requiring RGB at deployment.
Fig.~\ref{fig:detection_result} shows that our model achieves tighter localization and fewer false positives than representative fusion baselines. To further inspect the feature behavior under degraded RGB conditions, we visualize intermediate features in Fig.~\ref{fig:feature}. These visualizations are used as training-time feature-level diagnostics; the deployed InfraNet-IR model still uses only IR input.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{fig/feature.pdf}
% \vspace{-0.2cm}
\caption{
Feature-level visualization on M$^3$FD nighttime examples. InfraNet-IR produces more target-aligned responses with less background activation. This visualization is used to diagnose the effect of RGB-guided training under degraded RGB conditions; the deployed InfraNet-IR model still performs IR-only inference.
}
\label{fig:feature}
\vspace{-8pt}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Ablation Studies}
\label{subsec:ablation}
We conduct comprehensive ablation studies to validate our design choices and dissect the contribution of each component.
Unless otherwise specified, all ablations use YOLOv8 with consistent training protocols (300 epochs, SGD optimizer, standard augmentation).
\paragraph{QualGate Design Dissection.}
Table~\ref{tab:qualgate_dissection} isolates the contribution of QualGate from both the \emph{module} and \emph{mechanism} perspectives.
Replacing QualGate with HalluciDet-style pseudo-RGB guidance or existing adaptive weighting modules (CAGF/CRLM) leads to inferior results, indicating that generic reliability-aware fusion is insufficient for our IR-centric setting.
More importantly, removing either branch of the proposed modulation degrades performance: disabling IR amplification (\(\alpha(q)\equiv 1\)) causes a clear drop, and disabling RGB suppression (\(w_{\mathrm{rgb}}\equiv 1\)) also hurts accuracy.
These results support our central design choice that a learned scalar reliability score \(q\) should jointly \emph{suppress unreliable RGB guidance} and \emph{compensate the IR stream}, which is critical for robust IR representation learning and IR-only deployment.
\vspace{-0.6em}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.05}
\small
\caption{QualGate design dissection on LLVIP using YOLOv8 (InfraNet-IR setting).
We compare QualGate with representative alternatives (HalluciDet-style pseudo-RGB guidance, CAGF, and CRLM), and further ablate its two key components: RGB suppression and IR amplification.
The full QualGate consistently achieves the best performance, validating that the gain comes from the proposed \emph{suppress+amplify} reliability modulation rather than generic feature reweighting.}
% (A) isolates IR amplification vs.\ RGB suppression (YOLOv8-IR). (B) addresses ResNet34/50 fairness for InfraNet-IR.
% All numbers are mAP(\%) with one decimal.}
\vspace{-0.6em}
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabular}{lcc}
\toprule
Setting/Backbone & $mAP_{50}$ & $mAP_{50\text{--}95}$ \\
\midrule
\midrule
\multicolumn{3}{l}{
\textbf{A. QualGate ablation (LLVIP, YOLOv8-IR)}}\\
\midrule
HalluciDet (Faster RCNN)~\cite{Medeiros_2024_WACV} & 88.3 & - \\
Ours training with pseudo-RGB by HalluciDet & 95.2 & 64.9 \\
Ours replacing QualGate with CAGF~\cite{zhang2021abmdrnet} & 95.7 & 66.8\\
Ours replacing QualGate with CRLM~\cite{liu2023quality}& 96.9 & 66.7 \\
Ours with Full QualGate & \textbf{97.3} & \textbf{68.8} \\
~~w/o IR amp ($\alpha(q)\equiv 1$) & 97.1 & 67.2 \\
~~w/o RGB supp ($w_{\mathrm{rgb}}\equiv 1$) & 97.1 & 68.4 \\
~~Naive ($q\equiv 1$) & 96.9 & 67.7 \\
% \midrule
% \multicolumn{3}{l}{\textbf{B. InfraNet-IR backbone (LLVIP, IR-only inference)}}\\
% \midrule
% % ResNet34 (paper setting) & 97.4 & 69.0 \\
% ResNet50 (additional check) & 97.7 & 68.4 \\
\midrule
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\label{tab:qualgate_dissection}
\vspace{-0.6cm}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Controlled RGB Degradation and \(q\) Validation.}
Table~\ref{tab:q_degradation} analyzes the behavior of the learned scalar control score \(q\) under controlled RGB perturbations, without using any extra quality annotations.
Under fog corruption, \(q\) decreases mildly as degradation becomes stronger, while our method remains more stable than the naive variant, especially at severe degradation levels.
For brightness perturbation, \(q\) varies more mildly and is not intended to serve as a handcrafted image-quality metric.
These results support our interpretation of \(q\) as a task-oriented reliability control signal for limiting harmful RGB guidance, rather than as an explicit estimator of perceptual RGB quality.
Additional analyses on reliability granularity, fusion-site placement, and IR amplification range are provided in the supplementary material.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.05}
\small
\caption{Controlled RGB degradation analysis on LLVIP with fixed IR input.
We progressively degrade only the RGB modality (Fog / Brightness) and report the predicted quality score \(q\) together with detection performance (AP50/AP).
``Naive'' disables reliability control by forcing \(q\equiv 1\). The results show that learned reliability control improves robustness under degraded RGB conditions, without requiring \(q\) to be interpreted as a perceptual image-quality score.}
\vspace{-0.6em}
\scalebox{0.75}{
\begin{tabular}{c ccc c ccc}
\toprule
& \multicolumn{3}{c}{\emph{Fog}} & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\emph{Brightness}} \\
\cmidrule{2-4} \cmidrule{6-8}
Level & $q$ & Ours & Naive & & $q$ & Ours & Naive \\
\midrule
0.2 & 0.441 & 97.0/67.6 & 95.8/66.9 & & 0.459 & 97.5/67.8 & 96.7/66.7 \\
0.4 & 0.439 & 97.0/67.7 & 95.6/66.1 & & 0.465 & 97.5/67.6 & 96.8/67.0 \\
0.6 & 0.437 & 97.1/67.7 & 95.3/65.9 & & 0.473 & 97.3/67.1 & 96.2/65.3 \\
0.8 & 0.435 & 97.1/67.7 & 94.4/64.5 & & 0.481 & 96.9/66.9 & 95.2/65.4 \\
1.0 & 0.434 & 97.1/67.8 & 92.6/61.8 & & 0.484 & 96.5/66.4 & 93.6/63.9 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\label{tab:q_degradation}
% \vspace{-1.6em}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Deployment Flexibility Analysis.}
Table~\ref{tab:deployment_and_loss} (a) compares three deployment configurations on M3FD: a conventional IR baseline and our two InfraNet-based detectors (InfraNet-IR and InfraNet-RGB-IR). InfraNet-IR improves the baseline by +1.4 AP50 and +1.8 AP with the same parameters and inference time, showing that auxiliary RGB supervision strengthens IR feature learning without extra deployment cost. When RGB is available, InfraNet-RGB-IR yields larger gains (+5.1 AP50, +6.8 AP), confirming the benefit of quality-aware RGB-IR fusion.
% \begin{table}[!t]
% \centering
% \footnotesize
% \setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
% \caption{Deployment flexibility analysis on the M3FD dataset using YOLOv8. InfraNet-IR achieves zero-overhead IR-only deployment with superior performance compared to a vanilla IR detector, while InfraNet-RGB-IR offers optional dual-modal fusion for maximum accuracy when RGB is available. }
% \small
% \scalebox{0.85}{
% \begin{tabular}{@{}lccccc@{}}
% \toprule
% Method & \multicolumn{2}{c}{M$^3$FD Performance} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Computational Efficiency} \\
% \cmidrule(lr){2-3} \cmidrule(l){4-6}
% & AP$_{50}$ & AP & Params (M) & Speed (ms) \\
% \midrule
% IR baseline & 84.8 & 57.2 & 28.2 & 12.5 \\
% \midrule
% \textbf{Ours (IR)} & {86.2} & {59.0} & {28.2} & {12.5} \\
% \textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & {89.9} & {64.0} & 54.3 & 13.4 \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}}
% \label{tab:deployment_flexibility}
% % \vspace{-0pt}
% \end{table}
% \paragraph{Module Effectiveness.}
% Table~\ref{tab:ablation_modules} progressively adds components to baseline CBFuse.
% \textbf{IRRefiner} employs content-aware gating to adaptively weight multi-scale IR tip contributions:
% \begin{equation}
% g_k = \sigma\!\Big(\mathrm{MLP}\big(\mathrm{GAP}(\hat{F}^{\mathrm{IR}}_{s_k})\big)\Big), \quad F^{\mathrm{IR}}_{\mathrm{ref}} = \sum_{k=1}^{K} g_k \cdot \hat{F}^{\mathrm{IR}}_{s_k},
% \label{eq:ir_refiner_gate}
% \end{equation}
% where $\mathrm{MLP}$ is a two-layer bottleneck ($C \to C/16 \to 1$).
% IRRefiner yields marginal improvements (+0.1\% mAP), while QualGate brings substantially larger gains (+0.3--0.4\% mAP), confirming that \emph{quality-aware modulation is the dominant factor} driving performance.
% \begin{table}[!t]
% \centering
% \footnotesize
% \setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
% \begin{tabular}{@{}lcc|cc@{}}
% \toprule
% Method & \multicolumn{2}{c}{LLVIP} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{FLIR} \\
% \cmidrule(r){1-1} \cmidrule(lr){2-3} \cmidrule(l){4-5}
% & AP$_{50}$ & AP & AP$_{50}$ & AP \\
% \midrule
% Baseline: Static CBFuse & 97.2 & 68.4 & 88.2 & 53.7 \\
% + \tr{IRRefiner??} & 97.2 & 68.5 & 88.6 & 53.8 \\
% + QualGate & \textbf{97.3} & \textbf{68.8} & \textbf{88.5} & \textbf{54.0} \\
% \midrule
% Full model (RGB-IR) & \textbf{97.9} & \textbf{69.5} & \textbf{89.5} & \textbf{55.8} \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}
% \caption{Module ablation on LLVIP and FLIR datasets. Each row adds one component to validate incremental contributions.}
% \label{tab:ablation_modules}
% \vspace{-8pt}
% \end{table}
% \begin{table}[!t]
% \centering
% % \footnotesize
% \setlength{\tabcolsep}{4pt}
% \caption{Ablation study on auxiliary branch loss weight $w_{\mathrm{aux}}$ using YOLOv8 on LLVIP.}
% \scalebox{0.9}{
% \begin{tabular}{@{}lcccc@{}}
% \toprule
% Method & Backbone & $w_{\mathrm{aux}}$ & AP$_{50}$ & AP \\
% \midrule
% Ours (IR) & YOLOv8 & 0.0 & 97.0 & 68.0 \\
% Ours (IR) & YOLOv8& 0.1 & 97.2 & 68.2 \\
% Ours (IR) & YOLOv8& \textbf{0.25} & \textbf{97.3} & \textbf{68.8} \\
% Ours (IR) & YOLOv8& 0.5 & 97.1 & 68.3 \\
% Ours (IR) & YOLOv8& 1.0 & 97.1 & 68.1 \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}}
% \label{tab:ablation_loss_weight}
% % \vspace{-8pt}
% \end{table}
\begin{table}[!t]
\centering
\footnotesize
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{3pt}
\caption{(a) Deployment flexibility analysis on M3FD using YOLOv8. InfraNet-IR achieves zero-overhead IR-only deployment with superior performance, while InfraNet-RGB-IR offers optional dual-modal fusion. (b) Ablation study on $w_{\mathrm{aux}}$ using YOLOv8 on LLVIP.}
\label{tab:deployment_and_loss}
\vspace{-0.2cm}
%
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.55\columnwidth}
\centering
\textbf{(a)}\\[3pt]
\scalebox{0.75}{
\begin{tabular}{@{}lccccc@{}}
\toprule
Method & \multicolumn{2}{c}{M$^3$FD Performance} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{Computational Efficiency} \\
\cmidrule(lr){2-3} \cmidrule(l){4-6}
& AP$_{50}$ & AP & Params (M) & Speed (ms) \\
\midrule
IR baseline & 84.8 & 57.2 & 28.2 & 12.5 \\
\midrule
\textbf{Ours (IR)} & {86.2} & {59.0} & {28.2} & {12.5} \\
\textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & {89.9} & {64.0} & 54.3 & 13.4 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{minipage}%
\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.43\columnwidth}
\centering
\textbf{(b)}\\[3pt]
\scalebox{0.75}{
\begin{tabular}{@{}cccc@{}}
\toprule
Backbone & $w_{\mathrm{aux}}$ & AP$_{50}$ & AP \\
\midrule
YOLOv8 & 0.0 & 97.0 & 68.0 \\
YOLOv8 & 0.1 & 97.2 & 68.2 \\
YOLOv8 & \textbf{0.25} & \textbf{97.3} & \textbf{68.8} \\
YOLOv8 & 0.5 & 97.1 & 68.3 \\
YOLOv8 & 1.0 & 97.1 & 68.1 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{-0.5cm}
\end{table}
\paragraph{Auxiliary Branch Loss Weight.}
Table~\ref{tab:deployment_and_loss} (b) evaluates the auxiliary branch loss weight $w_{\mathrm{aux}}$ on LLVIP. $w_{\mathrm{aux}}=0.25$ achieves optimal performance (68.8\% mAP), indicating a balanced trade-off between the use of RGB guidance and the prevention of interference.
When $w_{\mathrm{aux}}$ is too small (0.0--0.1) or too large (0.5--1.0), performance degrades (68.0--68.3\% mAP), validating our asymmetric loss weighting strategy.
% \begin{table}[!t]
% \centering
% \small
% \caption{Comparison results with SOTA methods on LLVIP dataset. The best results are highlighted in \textcolor{red}{red}. The second and third best results are highlighted in \textcolor{green}{green} and \textcolor{blue}{blue}, respectively. }
% \scalebox{0.7}{
% \begin{tabular}{ccc|cc}
% \toprule
% Methods & Mode & Backbone & $mAP_{50}$ & $mAP$ \\
% \midrule
% (WACV'24) HalluciDet~\cite{Medeiros_2024_WACV} & IR &Faster RCNN & 88.3 & - \\
% \midrule
% (CVPRW'23) CSAA~\cite{cvprw2023csaa} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 94.3 & 54.2 \\
% (2024) RSDet~\cite{rsdet2024} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 95.8 & 61.3 \\
% (TIV'24) MMSANet~\cite{tiv2024mmsanet} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 96.4 & 62.5 \\
% (ICCV'25) WaveMamba~\cite{wavemamba} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 97.3 & 65.0 \\
% % (WACV'24) HalluciDet~\cite{Medeiros_2024_WACV} & IR & Resnet34 & 90.7 & - \\
% \textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & \textcolor{green}{98.1} & 69.2 \\
% \textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & ResNet34 & 97.4 & 69.0 \\
% \textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & ResNet50 & 97.7 & 68.4 \\
% \midrule
% (CVPR'24) Text-IF~\cite{cvpr2024textif} & RGB+IR & Transformer & 94.1 & 60.2 \\
% \midrule
% (IF'23) DIVFusion~\cite{if2023divfusion} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & 89.8 & 52.0 \\
% (PR'24) ICAFusion~\cite{pr2024icafusion} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & 95.2 & 60.1 \\
% (ICCV'25) WaveMamba~\cite{wavemamba} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & 97.6 & 65.2 \\
% \textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & \textcolor{red}{98.3} & \textcolor{blue}{70.2} \\
% \textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & YOLOv5 & 97.3 & 68.1 \\
% \midrule
% (ICHMS'24) MDMDet~\cite{10555757} & RGB+IR & YOLOv7 & 96.5 & 61.5 \\
% \midrule
% YOLOv8l-IR~\cite{10533619} & IR & YOLOv8 & 95.2 & 62.1 \\
% YOLOv8l-RGB~\cite{10533619} & RGB & YOLOv8 & 91.9 & 54.0 \\
% (RS'24) ACDF-YOLO~\cite{rs2024acdfyolo} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & 96.5 & 61.3 \\
% (ICHMS'24) MSFF~\cite{10555757} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & 96.8 & 61.9 \\
% (Sensors'24) FAWDet~\cite{s24134098} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & 97.1 & 62.1 \\
% (ICCV'25) WaveMamba~\cite{wavemamba} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & \textcolor{red}{98.3} & 66.0 \\
% \textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & \textcolor{green}{98.1} & \textcolor{green}{70.5} \\
% \textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & YOLOv8 & 97.3 & 68.8 \\
% \midrule
% \textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & RGB+IR & YOLOv12 & \textcolor{blue}{98.0} & \textcolor{red}{70.6} \\
% \textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & YOLOv12 & 97.2 & 67.6 \\
% \bottomrule
% \end{tabular}}
% \label{tab:example5}
% \end{table}
\begin{wraptable}{r}{0.5\columnwidth}
\vspace{-1.2cm}
\centering
\small
\caption{Comparison results with SOTA methods on LLVIP dataset. The best results are highlighted in \textcolor{red}{red}. The second and third best results are highlighted in \textcolor{green}{green} and \textcolor{blue}{blue}, respectively.}
\scalebox{0.62}{
\begin{tabular}{ccc|cc}
\toprule
Methods & Mode & Backbone & $mAP_{50}$ & $mAP$ \\
\midrule
(ACM MM'23) TIRDet~\cite{wang2023tirdet} & IR & CSPD53 & 96.3 & 64.2 \\
(WACV'24) HalluciDet~\cite{Medeiros_2024_WACV} & IR &Faster RCNN & 88.3 & - \\
\midrule
(CVPRW'23) CSAA~\cite{cvprw2023csaa} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 94.3 & 54.2 \\
(2024) RSDet~\cite{rsdet2024} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 95.8 & 61.3 \\
(TIV'24) MMSANet~\cite{tiv2024mmsanet} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 96.4 & 62.5 \\
(ICCV'25) WaveMamba~\cite{wavemamba} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 97.3 & 65.0 \\
\textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & \textcolor{green}{98.1} & 69.2 \\
% \textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & ResNet34 & 97.4 & 69.0 \\
\textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & ResNet50 & 97.7 & 68.4 \\
\midrule
(CVPR'24) Text-IF~\cite{cvpr2024textif} & RGB+IR & Transformer & 94.1 & 60.2 \\
\midrule
(IF'23) DIVFusion~\cite{if2023divfusion} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & 89.8 & 52.0 \\
(PR'24) ICAFusion~\cite{pr2024icafusion} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & 95.2 & 60.1 \\
(ICCV'25) WaveMamba~\cite{wavemamba} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & 97.6 & 65.2 \\
\textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & \textcolor{red}{98.3} & \textcolor{blue}{70.2} \\
\textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & YOLOv5 & 97.3 & 68.1 \\
\midrule
(ICHMS'24) MDMDet~\cite{10555757} & RGB+IR & YOLOv7 & 96.5 & 61.5 \\
\midrule
YOLOv8l-IR~\cite{10533619} & IR & YOLOv8 & 95.2 & 62.1 \\
YOLOv8l-RGB~\cite{10533619} & RGB & YOLOv8 & 91.9 & 54.0 \\
(RS'24) ACDF-YOLO~\cite{rs2024acdfyolo} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & 96.5 & 61.3 \\
(ICHMS'24) MSFF~\cite{10555757} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & 96.8 & 61.9 \\
(Sensors'24) FAWDet~\cite{s24134098} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & 97.1 & 62.1 \\
(ICCV'25) WaveMamba~\cite{wavemamba} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & \textcolor{red}{98.3} & 66.0 \\
\textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & \textcolor{green}{98.1} & \textcolor{green}{70.5} \\
\textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & YOLOv8 & 97.3 & 68.8 \\
\midrule
\textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & RGB+IR & YOLOv12 & \textcolor{blue}{98.0} & \textcolor{red}{70.6} \\
\textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & YOLOv12 & 97.2 & 67.6 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\label{tab:example5}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\end{wraptable}
\begin{table*}[!t]
\centering
\small
\caption{Comparison results with SOTA methods on FLIR-Aligned dataset. The best results are highlighted in \textcolor{red}{red}, the second and third best results are highlighted in \textcolor{green}{green} and \textcolor{blue}{blue}, respectively. For Precision/Recall/F1/$mAP_{50}$/\,$mAP$, larger is better; for Parameters and Inference time, smaller is better.}
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{ccc|ccc|cc|cc}
\toprule
Methods & Mode & Backbone & Precision & Recall & F1 & $mAP_{50}$ & $mAP$ & Parameters & Inference time (ms) \\
\midrule
% (WACV'24) HalluciDet~\cite{Medeiros_2024_WACV} & IR &Faster RCNN & - & - & - & 70.9 & - & - & -\\
(ACM MM'23) TIRDet~\cite{wang2023tirdet} & IR & CSPD53 & - & - & - & 81.4 & 44.3 & - & - \\
\midrule
(TITS'23) MFPT~\cite{tits2023mfpt} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 79.3 & 72.9 & 76.0 & 80.0 & 41.9 & 200.0M & 80.0 \\
(ICCV'25) WaveMamba~\cite{wavemamba} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 84.2 & 77.9 & 80.9 & 86.5 & 47.9 & 193.2M & 53.2 \\
% (WACV'24) HalluciDet~\cite{Medeiros_2024_WACV} & IR & Resnet34 & - & - & - & 71.6 & - & - & -\\
\textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 83.5 & 80.4 & 81.9 & 88.6 & 54.3 & 73.8M & 14.4 \\
% \textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & ResNet34 & 84.9 & 78.9 & 81.8 & 87.8 & 53.4 & \textcolor{red}{23.4M} & \textcolor{red}{9.2} \\
\textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & ResNet50 & 84.9 & 78.8 & 81.7 & 87.3 & 53 & 42.1M & \textcolor{red}{9.4} \\
\midrule
(PRL'24) CrossFormer~\cite{prl2024crossformer} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & 78.1 & 72.8 & 75.4 & 79.3 & 42.1 & 340.0M & 80.0 \\
(ICCV'25) WaveMamba~\cite{wavemamba} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & 83.9 & 79.7 & 81.7 & 85.8 & 47.5 & 45.6M & 44.1 \\
\textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & \textcolor{green}{85.1} & \textcolor{red}{81.8} & \textcolor{red}{83.3} & \textcolor{red}{89.5} & \textcolor{blue}{55.1} & 52.2M & 13.2 \\
\textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & YOLOv5 & 84.9 & 80.4 & 82.6 & 88.1 & 53.8 & \textcolor{green}{26.0M} & \textcolor{green}{11.6} \\
\midrule
YOLOv8-IR~\cite{10533619} & IR & YOLOv8 & 75.1 & 65.3 & 69.9 & 72.9 & 38.3 & 43.7M & 22.0 \\
YOLOv8-RGB~\cite{10533619} & RGB & YOLOv8 & 71.6 & 62.2 & 66.6 & 66.3 & 28.2 & 43.7M & 22.0 \\
(GRSL'24) ESSFN~\cite{grsl2024essfn} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & 81.4 & 73.5 & 77.2 & 80.8 & 42.3 & 80.2M & 47.0 \\
(ICCV'25) WaveMamba~\cite{wavemamba} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & 84.2 & \textcolor{blue}{80.9} & 82.5 & 88.4 & 48.1 & 69.1M & 40.0 \\
\textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & \textcolor{red}{85.8} & 79.9 & \textcolor{blue}{82.8} & \textcolor{green}{89.4} & \textcolor{green}{55.2} & 54.3M & 13.4 \\
\textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & YOLOv8 & 84.6 & \textcolor{blue}{80.9} & 82.7 & 88.5 & 54.0 & \textcolor{blue}{28.2M} & 12.5 \\
\midrule
\textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & RGB+IR & YOLOv12 & 84.3 & \textcolor{green}{81.7} & \textcolor{green}{83.0} & \textcolor{blue}{89.3} & \textcolor{red}{55.8} & 56.8M & 13.2 \\
\textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & YOLOv12 & \textcolor{blue}{85.0} & 79.5 & 82.2 & 87.7 & 53.2 & \textcolor{red}{24.7M} & \textcolor{blue}{12.0} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\label{tab:example6}
\vspace{-0pt}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}[!t]
\centering
\small
\caption{Comparison results with SOTA methods on DroneVehicle dataset. The best results are highlighted in \textcolor{red}{red}. The second and third best results are highlighted in \textcolor{green}{green} and \textcolor{blue}{blue}, respectively. }
\scalebox{0.7}{
\begin{tabular}{ccc|cc|ccccc}
\toprule
Methods & Mode & Backbone & $mAP_{50}$ & $mAP$ & Car & Bus & Truck & Freight-car & Van \\
\midrule
(ECCV'22) TSFADet~\cite{10.1007/978-3-031-20077-9_30} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 73.1 & 44.1 & 89.9 & 89.8 & 67.9 & 63.7 & 54.0 \\
(GRSL'24) GLFNet~\cite{10476333} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 71.4 & 54.8 & 90.3 & 88.0 & 72.7 & 53.6 & 52.6 \\
(TGRS'24) LF-MDet~\cite{10643097} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 71.8 & 51.3 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
(TGRS'24) $C^2$Former-$S^2$ANet~\cite{10472947} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 74.2 & 47.3 & 90.2 & 89.8 & 68.3 & 64.4 & 58.5 \\
(2024) DMM~\cite{zhou2024dmmdisparityguidedmultispectralmamba} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 77.2 & 55.8 & 90.4 & 88.7 & 77.8 & 63.0 & 66.0 \\
(JST'24) FFODNet~\cite{10461034} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 76.3 & 56.9 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
(ICCV'25) WaveMamba~\cite{wavemamba} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 79.3 & 59.9 & 94.6 & 90.2 & 79.6 & 68.0 & 64.1 \\
\textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & RGB+IR & ResNet50 & 83.9 & \textcolor{blue}{64.1} & \textcolor{green}{98.0} & \textcolor{red}{97.3} & 80.5 & \textcolor{blue}{78.0} & 65.7 \\
\textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & ResNet50 & 83.5 & 63.0 & \textcolor{blue}{97.8} & \textcolor{blue}{97.1} & 79.3 & 75.0 & \textcolor{blue}{68.3} \\
\midrule
(YAC'24) CAFN-IA~\cite{10598791} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & 69.3 & 56.1 & 89.1 & 90.8 & 62.0 & 57.3 & 47.1 \\
(RSL'24) multimodal DINO~\cite{article} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & 72.5 & 50.3 & 89.5 & 88.8 & 75.4 & 54.3 & 54.3 \\
(MTA'23) SLBAF-Net~\cite{10.1007/s11042-023-15333-w} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & 76.8 & 49.5 & 90.2 & 89.9 & 76.0 & 68.2 & 59.9 \\
(CVPR'24) CSOM-ODAF~\cite{10655285} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & 77.1 & 50.1 & 90.1 & 89.8 & 75.6 & 68.2 & 61.8 \\
(ICCV'25) WaveMamba~\cite{wavemamba} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & 79.5 & 60.2 & 94.8 & 90.1 & 80.1 & 68.2 & 64.3 \\
\textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & RGB+IR & YOLOv5 & 84.1 & 63.8 & \textcolor{red}{98.1} & \textcolor{green}{97.2} & \textcolor{green}{82.1} & 76.2 & 67.1 \\
\textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & YOLOv5 & 83.6 & 63.1 & \textcolor{green}{98.0} & 96.9 & 79.6 & 75.5 & 68.2 \\
\midrule
(Sensors'23) Dual-YOLO~\cite{s23062934} & RGB+IR & YOLOv7 & 71.9 & 55.2 & 95.9 & 91.6 & 69.7 & 55.9 & 46.6 \\
\midrule
YOLOv8l-IR~\cite{10533619} & IR & YOLOv8 & 71.9 & 49.1 & 93.4 & 91.9 & 69.3 & 53.7 & 51.1 \\
YOLOv8l-RGB~\cite{10533619} & RGB & YOLOv8 & 70.2 & 48.6 & 92.5 & 91.7 & 68.8 & 47.8 & 50.2 \\
(AEORS'24) YOLOFIV~\cite{10643643} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & 64.7 & 53.1 & 95.9 & 91.6 & 64.2 & 34.6 & 37.3 \\
(TGRS'24) CRSIOD~\cite{10440361} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & 73.2 & 50.8 & 95.6 & 92.2 & 71.7 & 50.5 & 55.8 \\
(IJAEOG'24) M2FNet~\cite{JIANG2024103918} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & 76.8 & 50.4 & 95.8 & 93.1 & 75.9 & 59.8 & 59.4 \\
(Sensors'24) IV-YOLO~\cite{s24196181} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & 74.6 & 56.8 & 97.2 & 94.3 & 65.4 & 63.1 & 53.0 \\
(RS'24) DAAB-FFPN~\cite{rs16203904} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & 75.2 & 56.3 & -- & -- & -- & -- & -- \\
(ICCV'25) WaveMamba~\cite{wavemamba} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & 79.8 & 60.5 & 95.0 & 90.6 & 80.4 & 68.5 & 64.5 \\
\textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & RGB+IR & YOLOv8 & \textcolor{red}{85.0} & \textcolor{red}{64.9} & \textcolor{red}{98.1} & \textcolor{red}{97.3} & \textcolor{red}{82.6} & \textcolor{red}{79.9} & 67.3 \\
\textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & YOLOv8 & 84.0 & 63.4 & \textcolor{green}{98.0} & 97.0 & 80.0 & 76.9 & \textcolor{green}{68.4} \\
\midrule
\textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & RGB+IR & YOLOv12 & \textcolor{green}{84.8} & \textcolor{green}{64.7} & \textcolor{green}{98.0} & \textcolor{red}{97.3} & \textcolor{red}{82.6} & \textcolor{green}{78.3} & 67.6 \\
\textbf{Ours (IR)} & IR & YOLOv12 & \textcolor{blue}{84.7} & 63.9 & \textcolor{red}{98.1} & \textcolor{red}{97.3} & \textcolor{blue}{81.3} & 77.7 & \textcolor{red}{69.3} \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}}
\label{tab:example4}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{table*}
% \begin{table}[ht]
% \centering
% \caption{Comparison results on $M^3$FD subset, including M3FD Night dataset. The best results are highlighted in \textcolor{red}{red}, the second best results are highlighted in \textcolor{blue}{blue}, respectively. }
% \small
% \scalebox{0.85}{
% \begin{tabular}{lc|cccc}
% \hline
% Method & Backbone & Day & Overcast & Night & Challenge \\
% \hline
% Infrared~\cite{liu2022target} & YOLOv5 & 58.9 & 80.3 & 79.5 & 70.9 \\
% Visible~\cite{liu2022target} & YOLOv5 & 59.1 & 82.4 & 78.7 & 75.9 \\
% DenseFuse~\cite{li2019densefuse} & Dense-CNN & 60.8 & 75.9 & 80.6 & 83.7 \\
% FusionGAN~\cite{ma2019fusiongan} & CNN & 60.1 & 81.6 & 79.8 & 66.7 \\
% RFN~\cite{cvpr2022rfnet} & RFN & 59.2 & 79.6 & 80.3 & 82.7 \\
% GANMcC~\cite{ma2020ganmcc} & CNN & 60.3 & 79.6 & 81.1 & 82.7 \\
% DDcGAN~\cite{li2019ddcgan} & CNN & 59.4 & 78.0 & 77.1 & 68.9 \\
% MFEIF~\cite{zhou2020mfeif} & CNN & 60.7 & 77.0 & 81.2 & 68.3 \\
% U2Fusion~\cite{xu2020u2fusion} & VGG-16 & 60.4 & 79.3 & 78.3 & 83.6 \\
% TarDAL~\cite{liu2022target} & YOLOv5 & 61.3 & 82.3 & 81.6 & 84.6 \\
% \textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & YOLOv5 & \textcolor{blue}{{87.6}} & 86.8 & 96.6 & \textcolor{red}{{99.5}} \\
% \textbf{Ours (IR)} & YOLOv5 & 82.7 & 81.2 & 92.3 & \textcolor{red}{{99.5}} \\
% \textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & YOLOv8 & \textcolor{red}{{87.7}} & \textcolor{blue}{87.4} & \textcolor{red}{{96.8}} & \textcolor{red}{{99.5}} \\
% \textbf{Ours (IR)} & YOLOv8 & 83.5 & 81.4 & 92.1 & \textcolor{red}{{99.5}} \\
% \textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & YOLOv12 & \textcolor{blue}{{87.6}} & \textcolor{red}{{88.7}} & \textcolor{blue}{{96.7}} & \textcolor{red}{{99.5}} \\
% \textbf{Ours (IR)} & YOLOv12 & 81.2 & 80.8 & 92.3 & \textcolor{blue}{99.4} \\
% \hline
% \end{tabular}
% }
% % \textbf{Bolded results indicate our method.}}
% \label{tab:m3fd_4}
% % \vspace{-10pt}
% \end{table}
\begin{wraptable}{r}{0.5\textwidth} % 'r' for right alignment, and 50% width of the text column
\vspace{-1cm} % 可选：调整表格与文本的间距
\centering
\small
\caption{Comparison results on $M^3$FD subsets in AP50. The best results are highlighted in \textcolor{red}{red}, the second best results are highlighted in \textcolor{blue}{blue}, respectively.}
\scalebox{0.65}{
\begin{tabular}{lc|cccc}
\hline
Method & Backbone & Day & Overcast & Night & Challenge \\
\hline
Infrared~\cite{liu2022target} & YOLOv5 & 58.9 & 80.3 & 79.5 & 70.9 \\
Visible~\cite{liu2022target} & YOLOv5 & 59.1 & 82.4 & 78.7 & 75.9 \\
DenseFuse~\cite{li2019densefuse} & Dense-CNN & 60.8 & 75.9 & 80.6 & 83.7 \\
FusionGAN~\cite{ma2019fusiongan} & CNN & 60.1 & 81.6 & 79.8 & 66.7 \\
RFN~\cite{cvpr2022rfnet} & RFN & 59.2 & 79.6 & 80.3 & 82.7 \\
GANMcC~\cite{ma2020ganmcc} & CNN & 60.3 & 79.6 & 81.1 & 82.7 \\
DDcGAN~\cite{li2019ddcgan} & CNN & 59.4 & 78.0 & 77.1 & 68.9 \\
MFEIF~\cite{zhou2020mfeif} & CNN & 60.7 & 77.0 & 81.2 & 68.3 \\
U2Fusion~\cite{xu2020u2fusion} & VGG-16 & 60.4 & 79.3 & 78.3 & 83.6 \\
TarDAL~\cite{liu2022target} & YOLOv5 & 61.3 & 82.3 & 81.6 & 84.6 \\
\textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & YOLOv5 & \textcolor{blue}{{87.6}} & 86.8 & 96.6 & \textcolor{red}{{99.5}} \\
\textbf{Ours (IR)} & YOLOv5 & 82.7 & 81.2 & 92.3 & \textcolor{red}{{99.5}} \\
\textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & YOLOv8 & \textcolor{red}{{87.7}} & \textcolor{blue}{87.4} & \textcolor{red}{{96.8}} & \textcolor{red}{{99.5}} \\
\textbf{Ours (IR)} & YOLOv8 & 83.5 & 81.4 & 92.1 & \textcolor{red}{{99.5}} \\
\textbf{Ours (RGB-IR)} & YOLOv12 & \textcolor{blue}{{87.6}} & \textcolor{red}{{88.7}} & \textcolor{blue}{{96.7}} & \textcolor{red}{{99.5}} \\
\textbf{Ours (IR)} & YOLOv12 & 81.2 & 80.8 & 92.3 & \textcolor{blue}{99.4} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\label{tab:m3fd_4}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{wraptable}
\section{Conclusion}
% In this paper, we introduce \textbf{InfraNet}, a novel quality-aware framework for RGB-IR/IR-only object detection.
% By leveraging a dual-branch asymmetric architecture, InfraNet prioritizes the more reliable IR modality, while adaptively incorporating RGB features only when they provide stable and useful information.
In this paper, we introduce InfraNet, a modality-asymmetric quality-aware framework for RGB--IR/IR-only object detection.
Based on InfraNet, we design two separate architectures, the IR-only detector (InfraNet-IR) and the dual-branch RGB--IR detector (InfraNet-RGB-IR).
In both architectures, we keep IR as the primary pathway and use RGB as reliability-controlled guidance when available.
This cross-modal guidance is regulated by \textbf{QualGate}, which learns a task-oriented control signal to suppress unreliable RGB guidance and compensate IR features during training.
Through extensive experiments on four benchmark datasets, we show that InfraNet achieves strong performance under different deployment settings. Notably, InfraNet-IR maintains high inference efficiency by removing the RGB branch and fusion modules at deployment, while InfraNet-RGB-IR provides a higher-capacity option when both modalities are available.
\begin{thebibliography}{10}
\providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
\providecommand{\urlprefix}{URL }
\providecommand{\doi}[1]{https://doi.org/#1}
\bibitem{s23062934}
Bao, C., Cao, J., Hao, Q., Cheng, Y., Ning, Y., Zhao, T.: Dual-yolo architecture from infrared and visible images for object detection. Sensors (2023)
\bibitem{bijelic2020seeing}
Bijelic, M., Gruber, T., Mannan, F., Kraus, F., Ritter, W., Dietmayer, K., Heide, F.: Seeing through fog without seeing fog: Deep multimodal sensor fusion in unseen adverse weather. In: CVPR. pp. 11682--11692 (2020)
\bibitem{cvprw2023csaa}
Cao, Y., Bin, J., Hamari, J., Blasch, E., Liu, Z.: Multimodal object detection by channel switching and spatial attention. In: CVPRW (2023)
\bibitem{10655285}
Chen, C., Qi, J., Liu, X., Bin, K., Fu, R., Hu, X., Zhong, P.: Weakly misalignment-free adaptive feature alignment for uavs-based multimodal object detection. In: CVPR (2024)
\bibitem{eccv2022shanet}
Chen, Y.T., Shi, J., Ye, Z., Mertz, C., Ramanan, D., Kong, S.: Multimodal object detection via probabilistic ensembling. In: ECCV (2022)
\bibitem{10.1007/s11042-023-15333-w}
Cheng, X., Geng, K., Wang, Z., Wang, J., Sun, Y., Ding, P.: Slbaf-net: Super-lightweight bimodal adaptive fusion network for uav detection in low recognition environment. Multimedia Tools Appl. (2023)
\bibitem{deevi2024rgbx}
Deevi, S.A., Lee, C., Gan, L., Nagesh, S., Pandey, G., Chung, S.J.: Rgb-x object detection via scene-specific fusion modules. In: WACV. pp. 7366--7375 (2024)
\bibitem{fusionmamba}
Dong, W., Zhu, H., Lin, S., Luo, X., Shen, Y., Guo, G., Zhang, B.: Fusion-mamba for cross-modality object detection. {IEEE} Trans. Multim. \textbf{27}, 7392--7406 (2025)
\bibitem{qingyun2021fusing}
Fang, Q., Han, D., Wang, Z.: Cross-modality fusion transformer for multispectral object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.00273 (2021)
\bibitem{rs2024acdfyolo}
Fei, X., Guo, M., Li, Y., Yu, R., Sun, L.: Acdf-yolo: Attentive and cross-differential fusion network for multimodal remote sensing object detection. Remote. Sens. (2024)
\bibitem{GuiSQT24}
Gui, S., Song, S., Qin, R., Tang, Y.: Remote sensing object detection in the deep learning era - {A} review. Remote. Sens. \textbf{16}(2), ~327 (2024)
\bibitem{he2015deep}
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Deep residual learning for image recognition (2015), \url{https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.03385}, accessed: June 29, 2026
\bibitem{hinton2015distilling}
Hinton, G., Vinyals, O., Dean, J.: Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531 (2015)
\bibitem{Hussain24}
Hussain, M.: Yolov1 to v8: Unveiling each variant-a comprehensive review of {YOLO}. {IEEE} Access \textbf{12}, 42816--42833 (2024)
\bibitem{jia2021llvip}
Jia, X., Zhu, C., Li, M., Tang, W., Zhou, W.: Llvip: A visible-infrared paired dataset for low-light vision. In: ICCVW (2021)
\bibitem{JIANG2024103918}
Jiang, C., Ren, H., Yang, H., Huo, H., Zhu, P., Yao, Z., Li, J., Sun, M., Yang, S.: M2fnet: Multi-modal fusion network for object detection from visible and thermal infrared images. Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinf. (2024)
\bibitem{jocher2022ultralytics}
Jocher, G., chaurasia, A., Stoken, A., Borovec, J., Kwon, Y., Michael, K., Fang, J., Wong, c., Yifu, Z., Montes, D., et~al.: ultralytics/yolov5: v6. 2-yolov5 classification models, apple ml, reproducibility, clearml and deci. ai integrations. Zenodo (2022)
\bibitem{10476333}
Kang, X., Yin, H., Duan, P.: Global–local feature fusion network for visible–infrared vehicle detection. IEEE Geosci. Remote Sens. Lett. (2024)
\bibitem{KristoIP20}
Kristo, M., Ivasic{-}Kos, M., Pobar, M.: Thermal object detection in difficult weather conditions using {YOLO}. {IEEE} Access \textbf{8}, 125459--125476 (2020)
\bibitem{prl2024crossformer}
Lee, S., Park, J., Park, J.: Crossformer: Cross-guided attention for multi-modal object detection. Pattern Recognit. Lett. (2024)
\bibitem{tiv2024mmsanet}
Li, A., Wang, Z., Wang, F., Liu, Z., Yin, G., Fang, R., Geng, K.: A novel semantic information perception architecture for extreme targets detection in complex traffic scenarios. IEEE Trans. Intell. Veh. (2024)
\bibitem{pr2019illumination}
Li, C., Song, D., Tong, R., Tang, M.: Illumination-aware faster r-cnn for robust multispectral pedestrian detection. PR (2019)
\bibitem{li2025crossmodalnet}
Li, H., et~al.: Crossmodalnet: A dual-modal object detection network based on cross-modal fusion and channel interaction. Expert Systems with Applications p. 129677 (2025)
\bibitem{li2019densefuse}
Li, H., Wu, X.J., Kittler, J.: Densefuse: A fusion approach to infrared and visible images. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing \textbf{28}(5), 2614--2623 (2019)
\bibitem{li2019ddcgan}
Li, H., Wu, X.J., Kittler, J.: Infrared and visible image fusion using a dual discriminator conditional generative adversarial network. IEEE Access \textbf{7}, 103964--103977 (2019)
\bibitem{mm2023ignet}
Li, J., Chen, J., Liu, J., Ma, H.: Learning a graph neural network with cross modality interaction for image fusion. In: ACMMM (2023)
\bibitem{tcsvt2024evidential}
Li, Q., Zhang, C., Hu, Q., Zhu, P., Fu, H., Chen, L.: Stabilizing multispectral pedestrian detection with evidential hybrid fusion. TCSVT (2024)
\bibitem{tmm2024m2fnet}
Li, X., Chen, S., Tian, C., Zhou, H., Zhang, Z.: M$^2$fnet: Mask-guided multi-level fusion for rgb-t pedestrian detection. IEEE Trans. Multimed. (2024)
\bibitem{liu2022target}
Liu, J., Fan, X., Huang, Z., Wu, G., Liu, R., Zhong, W., Luo, Z.: Target-aware dual adversarial learning and a multi-scenario multi-modality benchmark to fuse infrared and visible for object detection. In: CVPR (2022)
\bibitem{zhou2020mfeif}
Liu, J., Fan, X., Jiang, J., Liu, R., Luo, Z.: Learning a deep multi-scale feature ensemble and an edge-attention guidance for image fusion. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology \textbf{32}(1), 105--119 (2022)
\bibitem{liu2023quality}
Liu, L., Li, C., Xiao, Y., Tang, J.: Quality-aware rgbt tracking via supervised reliability learning and weighted residual guidance. In: ACMMM. pp. 3129--3137 (2023)
\bibitem{ma2019fusiongan}
Ma, J., Yu, W., Liang, P., Jiang, J., Ling, H.: Fusiongan: A generative adversarial network for infrared and visible image fusion. Information Fusion \textbf{48}, 11--26 (2019)
\bibitem{ma2020ganmcc}
Ma, J., Zhang, H., Shao, Z., Liang, P., Xu, H.: Ganmcc: A generative adversarial network with multiclassification constraints for ivif. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement \textbf{70}, 1--14 (2020)
\bibitem{medeiros2025mipa}
Medeiros, H.R., et~al.: Mixed patch visible-infrared modality agnostic object detection. In: WACV (2025)
\bibitem{Medeiros_2024_WACV}
Medeiros, H.R., Pe\~na, F.A.G., Aminbeidokhti, M., Dubail, T., Granger, E., Pedersoli, M.: Hallucidet: Hallucinating rgb modality for person detection through privileged information. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). pp. 1444--1453 (2024)
\bibitem{PayghodeGBID23}
Payghode, V., Goyal, A., Bhan, A., Iyer, S.S., Dubey, A.K.: Object detection and activity recognition in video surveillance using neural networks. Int. J. Web Inf. Syst. \textbf{19}(3/4), 123--138 (2023)
\bibitem{pr2024icafusion}
Shen, J., Chen, Y., Liu, Y., Zuo, X., Fan, H., Yang, W.: Icafusion: Iterative cross-attention guided feature fusion for multispectral object detection. PR (2024)
\bibitem{article}
Sun, X., Yu, Y., Cheng, Q.: Adaptive multimodal feature fusion with frequency domain gate for remote sensing object detection. Remote Sens. Lett. (2024)
\bibitem{10643097}
Sun, X., Yu, Y., Cheng, Q.: Low-rank multimodal remote sensing object detection with frequency filtering experts. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. (2024)
\bibitem{mm2022detfusion}
Sun, Y., Cao, B., Zhu, P., Hu, Q.: Detfusion: A detection-driven infrared and visible image fusion network. In: ACMMM (2022)
\bibitem{sun2022drone}
Sun, Y., Cao, B., Zhu, P., Hu, Q.: Drone-based rgb-infrared cross-modality vehicle detection via uncertainty-aware learning. TCSVT (2022)
\bibitem{jas2022superfusion}
Tang, L., Deng, Y., Ma, Y., Huang, J., Ma, J.: Superfusion: A versatile image registration and fusion network with semantic awareness. IEEE/CAA J. Autom. Sin. (2022)
\bibitem{if2023divfusion}
Tang, L., Xiang, X., Zhang, H., Gong, M., Ma, J.: Divfusion: Darkness-free infrared and visible image fusion. Inf. Fusion (2023)
\bibitem{flir2018}
{Teledyne FLIR}: Free flir thermal dataset for algorithm training. \url{https://www.flir.com/oem/adas/adas-dataset-form/} (2018), accessed: June 29, 2026
\bibitem{s24196181}
Tian, D., Yan, X., Zhou, D., Wang, C., Zhang, W.: Iv-yolo: A lightweight dual-branch object detection network. Sensors (2024)
\bibitem{vapnik2009lupi}
Vapnik, V., Vashist, A.: A new learning paradigm: Learning using privileged information. Neural Networks \textbf{22}(5-6), 544--557 (2009)
\bibitem{10533619}
Varghese, R., M., S.: Yolov8: A novel object detection algorithm with enhanced performance and robustness. In: ADICS (2024)
\bibitem{wang2024yolov9}
Wang, C.Y., Yeh, I.H., Liao, H.Y.M.: Yolov9: Learning what you want to learn using programmable gradient information. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13616 (2024)
\bibitem{10643643}
Wang, H., Wang, C., Fu, Q., Si, B., Zhang, D., Kou, R., Yu, Y., Feng, C.: Yolofiv: Object detection algorithm for around-the-clock aerial remote sensing images by fusing infrared and visible features. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. (2024)
\bibitem{10440361}
Wang, H., Wang, C., Fu, Q., Zhang, D., Kou, R., Yu, Y., Song, J.: Cross-modal oriented object detection of uav aerial images based on image feature. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. (2024)
\bibitem{rs16203904}
Wang, J., Su, N., Zhao, C., Yan, Y., Feng, S.: Multi-modal object detection method based on dual-branch asymmetric attention backbone and feature fusion pyramid network. Remote Sens. (2024)
\bibitem{10461034}
Wang, J., Xu, C., Zhao, C., Gao, L., Wu, J., Yan, Y., Feng, S., Su, N.: Multimodal object detection of uav remote sensing based on joint representation optimization and specific information enhancement. IEEE J. Sel. Top. Appl. Earth Obs. Remote Sens. (2024)
\bibitem{wang2023tirdet}
Wang, Z., Colonnier, F., Zheng, J., Acharya, J., Jiang, W., Huang, K.: Tirdet: Mono-modality thermal infrared object detection based on prior thermal-to-visible translation. In: Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia. pp. 2663--2672 (2023)
\bibitem{grsl2024essfn}
Xu, F., Xu, T., Hong, L., Peng, P., Guo, J., Li, J.: Enhanced spectral–spatial fusion network for multispectral object detection in ground-aerial images. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters (2024)
\bibitem{xu2020u2fusion}
Xu, H., Ma, J., Jiang, J., Guo, X., Ling, H.: U2fusion: A unified unsupervised image fusion network. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence \textbf{44}(1), 502--518 (2022)
\bibitem{cvpr2022rfnet}
Xu, H., Ma, J., Yuan, J., Le, Z., Liu, W.: Rfnet: Unsupervised network for mutually reinforcing multi-modal image registration and fusion. In: CVPR (2022)
\bibitem{10598791}
Xu, J., Mo, B., Zhao, J., Zhao, C., Tao, Y., Han, S.: Cross-modal adaptive fusion object detection based on illumination-awareness. In: YAC (2024)
\bibitem{xu2025mambatrans}
Xu, Y., et~al.: Mambatrans: Multimodal fusion image translation via large language model priors for downstream visual tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.07803 (2025)
\bibitem{yang2025review}
Yang, B., Li, J., Zeng, T.: A review of environmental perception technology based on multi-sensor information fusion in autonomous driving. World Electric Vehicle Journal \textbf{16}(1), ~20 (2025)
\bibitem{10555757}
Yang, H., Bian, W., Wang, J., Bo, Y., Mi, Y.: A dual-modality pedestrian detection method based on multi-scale feature fusion. In: ICHMS (2024)
\bibitem{cvpr2024textif}
Yi, X., Xu, H., Zhang, H., Tang, L., Ma, J.: Text-if: Leveraging semantic text guidance for degradation-aware and interactive image fusion. In: CVPR (2024)
\bibitem{10.1007/978-3-031-20077-9_30}
Yuan, M., Wang, Y., Wei, X.: Translation, scale and rotation: Cross-modal alignment meets rgb-infrared vehicle detection. In: ECCV (2022)
\bibitem{10472947}
Yuan, M., Wei, X.: C²former: Calibrated and complementary transformer for rgb-infrared object detection. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sens. (2024)
\bibitem{ijcv2021sdnet}
Zhang, H., Ma, J.: Sdnet: A versatile squeeze-and-decomposition network for real-time image fusion. IJCV (2021)
\bibitem{zhang2021abmdrnet}
Zhang, Q., Zhao, S., Luo, Y., Zhang, D., Huang, N., Han, J.: Abmdrnet: Adaptive-weighted bi-directional modality difference reduction network for rgb-t semantic segmentation. In: CVPR. pp. 2633--2642 (2021)
\bibitem{10309914}
Zhao, H., Chu, K., Zhang, J., Feng, C.: Yolo-fsd: An improved target detection algorithm on remote-sensing images. IEEE Sensors Journal \textbf{23}(24), 30751--30764 (2023)
\bibitem{s24134098}
Zhao, P., Ye, X., Du, Z.: Object detection in multispectral remote sensing images based on cross-modal cross-attention. Sensors (2024)
\bibitem{rsdet2024}
Zhao, T., Yuan, M., Jiang, F., Wang, N., Wei, X.: Removal then selection: A coarse-to-fine fusion perspective for rgb-infrared object detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.10731 (2024)
\bibitem{cvpr2023cddfuse}
Zhao, Z., Bai, H., Zhang, J., Zhang, Y., Xu, S., Lin, Z., Timofte, R., Van~Gool, L.: Cddfuse: Correlation-driven dual-branch feature decomposition for multi-modality image fusion. In: CVPR (2023)
\bibitem{ijcai2020didfuse}
Zhao, Z., Xu, S., Zhang, C., Liu, J., Zhang, J., Li, P.: Didfuse: Deep image decomposition for infrared and visible image fusion. In: IJCAI (2020)
\bibitem{zhou2024dmmdisparityguidedmultispectralmamba}
Zhou, M., Li, T., Qiao, C., Xie, D., Wang, G., Ruan, N., Mei, L., Yang, Y.: Dmm: Disparity-guided multispectral mamba for oriented object detection in remote sensing. arXiv:2407.08132 (2024)
\bibitem{wavemamba}
Zhu, H., Dong, W., Yang, L., Li, H., Yang, Y., Ren, Y., Zhu, Q., Feng, Z., Li, C., Lin, S., Wang, R., Luo, X., Zhang, B.: Wavemamba: Wavelet-driven mamba fusion for rgb-infrared object detection. ICCV (2025)
\bibitem{tits2023mfpt}
Zhu, Y., Sun, X., Wang, M., Huang, H.: Multi-modal feature pyramid transformer for rgb-infrared object detection. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transport. Syst. (2023)
\end{thebibliography}