FocusTrack: One-Stage Focus-and-Suppress Framework for 3D Point Cloud Object Tracking
Authors: Sifan Zhou, Jiahao Nie, Ziyu Zhao, Yichao Cao, Xiaobo Lu
Organizations: School of Automation Southeast University, Key Laboratory of Measurement and Control of Complex Systems of Engineering, Ministry of Education Nanjing, China · School of Information Technology and Artificial Intelligence, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics Hangzhou, China · Big Data Institute Central South University Changsha, China
In 3D point cloud object tracking, the motion-centric methods have emerged as a promising avenue due to its superior performance in modeling inter-frame motion. However, existing two-stage motion-based approaches suffer from fundamental limitations: (1) error accumulation due to decoupled optimization caused by explicit foreground segmentation prior to motion estimation, and (2) computational bottlenecks from sequential processing. To address these challenges, we propose FocusTrack, a novel one-stage paradigms tracking framework that unifies motion-semantics co-modeling through two core innovations: Inter-frame Motion Modeling (IMM) and Focus-and-Suppress Attention. The IMM module employs a temp-oral-difference siamese encoder to capture global motion patterns between adjacent frames. The Focus-and-Suppress attention that enhance the foreground semantics via motion-salient feature gating and suppress the background noise based on the temporal-aware motion context from IMM without explicit segmentation. Based on above two designs, FocusTrack enables end-to-end training with compact one-stage pipeline. Extensive experiments on prominent 3D tracking benchmarks, such as KITTI, nuScenes, and Waymo, demonstrate that the FocusTrack achieves new SOTA performance while running at a high speed with 105 FPS.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Comparison between two-stage motion-based tracking methods (a) and our two-stage motion-based tracking method (b). The two-stage motion-based methods M2Track ( Zheng et al., 2022 ; Zheng et al., 2023 ) series models motion relation for tracking in a two-stage manner. In contrast, our FocusTrack explores unified motion-foreground modeling for one-stage tracking.
Figure 2. Comparison with state-of-the-art methods. We visualize mean precision across all categories on KITTI dataset ( Geiger et al., 2012 ) with respect to running speed (FPS). FocusTrack shows the new SOTA in terms of both accuracy and speed.
Figure 3. One-stage focus-and-suppress framework ( FocusTrack ): This framework consists of a backbone that capture inter-frame differences for motion modeling. Then, it features a Focus-and-Suppress attention mechanism designed to suppress background noise while enhancing foreground semantics based on motion weights.
Mean
Car
Pedestrian
Van
Cyclist
Paradigm
Tracker
Source
(14,068)
(6,424)
(6,088)
(1,248)
(308)
FPS
Device
Match
SC3D ( Giancola et al., 2019 )
CVPR’19
31.2 / 48.5
41.3 / 57.9
18.2 / 37.8
40.4 / 47.0
41.5 / 70.4
2
GTX 1080Ti
P2B ( Qi et al., 2020 )
CVPR’20
42.4 / 60.0
56.2 / 72.8
28.7 / 49.6
40.8 / 48.4
32.1 / 44.7
40
GTX 1080Ti
PTT ( Shan et al., 2021 )
IROS’21
55.1 / 74.2
67.8 / 81.8
44.9 / 72.0
43.6 / 52.5
37.2 / 47.3
40
GTX 1080Ti
LTTR ( Cui et al., 2021 )
BMVC’21
48.7 / 65.8
65.0 / 77.1
33.2 / 56.8
35.8 / 45.6
66.2 / 89.9
23
GTX 1080Ti
MLVSNet ( Wang et al., 2021 )
ICCV’21
45.7 / 66.6
56.0 / 74.0
34.1 / 61.1
52.0 / 61.4
34.4 / 44.5
70
GTX 1080Ti
Table 1. Comparisons with state-of-the-art methods on KITTI dataset ( Geiger et al., 2012 ) . The upper and lower parts include two-stream and one-stream trackers, respectively. Success / Precision are used for evaluation. Bold and underline denote the best result and the second-best one, respectively. † means the methods was pre-trained on large-scale images and point cloud dataset ( Fan et al., 2019 ; Huang et al., 2019 ; Pang et al., 2022 ) .
Tracker
Mean
Mean
Car
Pedestrian
Truck
Trailer
Bus
(117,278)
Category
(64,159)
(33,227)
(13,587)
(3,352)
(2,953)
SC3D ( Giancola et al., 2019 )
20.70 / 20.20
25.78 / 22.90
22.31 / 21.93
11.29 / 12.65
30.67 / 27.73
35.28 / 28.12
29.35 / 24.08
P2B ( Qi et al., 2020 )
36.48 / 45.08
38.41 / 40.90
38.81 / 43.18
28.39 / 52.24
42.95 / 41.59
48.96 / 40.05
32.95 / 27.41
PTT ( Shan et al., 2021 )
36.33 / 41.72
40.38 / 41.81
41.22 / 45.26
19.33 / 32.03
50.23 / 48.56
51.70 / 46.50
39.40 / 36.70
BAT ( Zheng et al., 2021 )
38.10 / 45.71
40.59 / 42.42
40.73 / 43.29
28.83 / 53.32
45.34 / 42.58
52.59 / 44.89
35.44 / 28.01
PTTR ( Zhou et al., 2022 )
44.50 / 52.07
43.22 / 44.91
51.89 / 58.61
29.90 / 45.09
45.30 / 44.74
45.87 / 38.36
43.14 / 37.74
Table 2. Comparisons with state-of-the-art methods on nuScenes dataset ( Caesar et al., 2020 ) . Success / Precision are used for evaluation. Bold and underline denote the best result and the second-best one, respectively.
Vehicle
Pedestrian
Easy
Medium
Hard
Mean
Easy
Medium
Hard
Mean
Tracker
Mean
(67,832)
(61,252)
(56,647)
(185,731)
(85,280)
(82,253)
(74,219)
(241,752)
P2B ( Qi et al., 2020 )
33.0 / 43.8
57.1 / 65.4
52.0 / 60.7
47.9 / 58.5
52.6 / 61.7
18.1 / 30.8
17.8 / 30.0
17.7 / 29.3
17.9 / 30.1
BAT ( Zheng et al., 2021 )
34.1 / 44.4
61.0 / 68.3
53.3 / 60.9
48.9 / 57.8
54.7 / 62.7
19.3 / 32.6
17.8 / 29.8
17.2 / 28.3
18.2 / 30.3
V2B ( Hui et al., 2021 )
38.4 / 50.1
64.5 / 71.5
55.1 / 63.2
52.0 / 62.0
57.6 / 65.9
27.9 / 43.9
22.5 / 36.2
20.1 / 33.1
23.7 / 37.9
STNet ( Hui et al., 2022 )
40.4 / 52.1
65.9 / 72.7
57.5 / 66.0
54.6 / 64.7
59.7 / 68.0
29.2 / 45.3
24.7 / 38.2
22.2 / 35.8
25.5 / 39.9
Table 3. Generalization comparisons on Waymo Open Dataset (WOD) ( Sun et al., 2020 ) . All the model is pre-trained on KITTI and evaluated on WOD val set. Success / Precision are used for evaluation. Bold and underline denote the best result and the second-best one.
Setting
CNN
Linear
DWC
IMM
Car
Pedestrian
(a)
✓
✗
✗
✗
69.4 / 79.6
63.1 / 87.7
(b)
✓
✓
✗
✗
70.2 / 80.4
64.5 / 89.3
(c)
✓
✓
✓
✗
71.6 / 82.1
66.2 / 91.0
(d)
✓
✓
✓
✓
74.1 / 85.9
69.3 / 94.1
Table 4. Ablation results of different module on the KITTI val set for car and pedestrian.
Figure 4. The BEV feature visualization of FocusTrack.
Setting
Shared
Car
Pedestrian
FPS
(a)
✗
73.2 / 83.8
68.7 / 92.9
91
(b)
✓
74.1 / 85.9
69.3 / 94.1
105
Table 5. Ablation of w/o shared setting for CNN and Linear layers in FocusTrack block on the KITTI dataset.
Ratio
Resolution
Car
Pedestrian
FPS
2X
64 X 64
71.5 / 82.1
66.1 / 90.1
118
4X
32 X 32
72.4 / 81.9
67.2/ 91.5
112
8X
16 X 16
74.1 / 85.9
69.3 / 94.1
105
16X
8 X 8
73.6 / 83.6
68.4 / 92.5
98
Table 6. Ablation study on downsample ratio.
Figure 11
Figure 5. Visualization of tracking results compared with state-of-the-art motion-based M2Track ( Zheng et al., 2022 ) method.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Seen Classes → Unseen Classes
Van
Cyclist
Van, Cyclist (Tab. 1)
68.4 / 83.5
75.9 / 94.7
Car,Pedestrian → Van,Cyclist
65.8 / 79.4
73.1 / 91.8
Appendix
Table 7. Generalization experiments from seen object classes to unseen ones on KITTI ( Geiger et al., 2012 ) dataset.
nuScenes → KITTI nuScenes
Car
Pedestrian
KITTI (Tab. 1)
74.1 / 85.9
69.3 / 94.1
nuScenes → KITTI
58.6 / 72.3
63.1 / 88.9
Appendix
Table 8. Generalization experiments between KITTI ( Geiger et al., 2012 ) and nuScenes ( Caesar et al., 2020 ) datasets with distinct point cloud sparsity.
Visual object tracking follows objects across video frames, maintaining their locations and identities despite motion, occlusion, and changing appearance.
LiDAR-based 3D Single Object Tracking (3D SOT) is critical for robotic perception and navigation and aims to localize dynamic objects across frames in sparse point clouds. Existing methods, rooted in the Siamese tracking paradigm from 2D vision, rely on costly dual-input designs and excessive motion modeling guided by template priors, hindering their efficiency. Our in-depth analysis reveals: (i) the template paradigm is redundant, as the previous bounding box center encodes sufficient historical context; (ii) complex motion modeling is unnecessary, as geometric alignment provides adequate motion priors. Based on the above findings, we propose the first Template-Free Tracking framework (TFTrack). The novel framework eliminates the need for template-search pairings and operates directly on the current frame guided solely by the prior bounding box center and size. We instantiate this paradigm into three variants: TFTrack-Voxel, TFTrack-Pillar, and TFTrack-Point, to explore different 3D representations under a unified framework, ensuring flexibility across sparse and dense scenes. Extensive experiments on KITTI and nuScenes benchmarks show that TFTrack is competitive with leading template-based trackers, while reducing FLOPs by approximately 50% and running at approximately 120 FPS. By simplifying overcomplicated motion-centric designs, TFTrack establishes a new minimalist paradigm for efficient 3D point cloud tracking, paving the way for real-time and resource-efficient deployment in embedded robotic systems, such as autonomous vehicles. The code is available at https://github.com/tftrack-anonymous/TFTrack/tree/main.
Zhaofeng Hu, Sifan Zhou, Jiahao Nie +3
Stony Brook University · Carnegie Mellon University · Hangzhou Dianzi University +2
Existing point tracking models face a fundamental tradeoff: they can either track a sparse set of query points over long horizons, or track all points across only short clips. We introduce TrackEverything, a 3D point tracker that breaks this trade-off by representing videos as persistent 3D scene tracks in world coordinates. Grounded in the insight that videos are 2D projections of an underlying 3D world, TrackEverything decouples model complexity from video duration, allowing it to scale with unique physical scene geometry instead. Our approach introduces three key innovations. First, we employ a voxelization-based de-duplication mechanism at sliding-window boundaries to merge co-located tracks, preventing repeated observations of the same surface from redundantly accumulating. Second, we decompose tracking into an endpoint refiner that predicts each point's destination and static-versus-dynamic classification, followed by a lightweight trajectory refiner that decodes dense trajectories exclusively for dynamic points. Third, we propose 3D WAFT, replacing memory-prohibitive 4D correlation volumes with efficient feature sampling in the scene cloud. To the best of our knowledge, TrackEverything is the first 3D tracker capable of tracking all visible points across videos exceeding 1000 frames within 40 GB of GPU memory. On TAPVid-3D, TrackEverything outperforms all open-source all-frame dense 3D trackers by more than 20% APD on short clips, while remaining competitive with state-of-the-art sparse trackers on long sequences, despite tracking far more points.
Monocular 3D object tracking aims to estimate temporally consistent 3D object poses across video frames, enabling autonomous agents to reason about scene dynamics. However, existing state-of-the-art approaches are fully supervised and rely on dense 3D annotations over long video sequences, which are expensive to obtain and difficult to scale. In this work, we address this fundamental limitation by proposing the first sparsely supervised framework for monocular 3D object tracking. Our approach decomposes the task into two sequential sub-problems: 2D query matching and 3D geometry estimation. Both components leverage the spatio-temporal consistency of image sequences to augment a sparse set of labeled samples and learn rich 2D and 3D representations of the scene. Leveraging these learned cues, our model automatically generates high-quality 3D pseudolabels across entire videos, effectively transforming sparse supervision into dense 3D track annotations. This enables existing fully-supervised trackers to effectively operate under extreme label sparsity. Extensive experiments on the KITTI and nuScenes datasets demonstrate that our method significantly improves tracking performance, achieving an improvement of up to 15.50 p.p. while using at most four ground truth annotations per track.
Nikhil Gosala, B. Ravi Kiran, Senthil Yogamani +1
University of Freiburg, Germany · Qualcomm SARL France · Automated Driving, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., USA