Organizations: School of Public Security and Emergency Management, Anhui University of Science and Technology, Hefei 231131, China. · Information Materials and Intelligent Sensing Laboratory of Anhui Province, Anhui Provincial Key Laboratory of Multimodal Cognitive Computation, School of Artificial Intelligence, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China. · School of Artificial Intelligence, Anhui University of Science and Technology, Hefei 231131, China. · Information Materials and Intelligent Sensing Laboratory of Anhui Province, Anhui Provincial Key Laboratory of Multimodal Cognitive Computation, School of Computer Science and Technology, Anhui University, Hefei 230601, China.
Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) techniques, such as prompts and adapters, are widely used in multi-modal tracking because they alleviate issues of full-model fine-tuning, including time inefficiency, high resource consumption, parameter storage burden, and catastrophic forgetting. However, due to cross-modal heterogeneity, most existing PEFT-based methods struggle to effectively represent multi-modal features within a unified framework with shared parameters. To address this problem, we propose a novel Sparse-Dense Mixture of Experts Adapter (SDMoEA) framework for PEFT-based multi-modal tracking under a unified model structure. Specifically, we design an SDMoE module as the multi-modal adapter to model modality-specific and shared information efficiently. SDMoE consists of a sparse MoE and a dense-shared MoE: the former captures modality-specific information, while the latter models shared cross-modal information. Furthermore, to overcome limitations of existing tracking methods in modeling high-order correlations during multi-level multi-modal fusion, we introduce a Gram-based Semantic Alignment Hypergraph Fusion (GSAHF) module. It first employs Gram matrices for cross-modal semantic alignment, ensuring that the constructed hypergraph accurately reflects semantic similarity and high-order dependencies between modalities. The aligned features are then integrated into the hypergraph structure to exploit its ability to model high-order relationships, enabling deep fusion of multi-level multi-modal information. Extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed method achieves superior performance compared with other PEFT approaches on several multi-modal tracking benchmarks, including LasHeR, RGBT234, VTUAV, VisEvent, COESOT, DepthTrack, and VOT-RGBD2022.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Comparison with different mixture of experts structures.
Fig. 2: Overview architecture of our proposed method. Here, we embed the Spare-Dense Mixture of Experts (SDMoE) module as the multi-modal adapter to effectively model modality-specific and shared information of fused modalities. Moreover, we also embed the Gram-based Semantic Alignment Hypergraph Fusion (GSAHF) module to address the modeling of higher-order correlations in multi-level and multi-modal feature fusion, achieving more robust feature representations.
Fig. 3: Detailed design of the proposed SDMoE module. The SDMoE consists of a spare MoE and a dense-shared MoE. Spare MoE has a router and N specific experts. The details of specific expert is shown on the right of the figure. Correspondingly, details about dense-shared MoE are shown on the left of the figure. Specific-E and FFN-E denote specific expert and the feedforward expert network of dense-shared MoE, respectively. The SiLU is a activation function, called Sigmoid Linear Unit.
Fig. 4: The detailed design of the proposed GSAHF module. The LW denotes learnable weights.
Method Type
Method
Source
LasHeR
RGBT234
PR
AUC
MPR
MSR
Multi-modal Trackers
PEFT
SDMoEA-L
Ours
77.7
60.9
92.6
68.3
SDMoEA-B
Ours
76.5
60.3
92.2
68.7
SeqTrackv2-L [ 11 ]
arXiv’23
76.7
61.0
91.3
68.0
SeqTrackv2-B [ 11 ]
arXiv’23
71.5
56.2
90.0
66.3
XTrack-L [ 12 ]
ICCV’25
73.1
58.7
87.8
65.4
TABLE I: Overall performance on LasHeR and RGBT234. Results are reported in percentage (%). PEFT and FFT represent parameter-efficient fine-tuning and full fine-tuning, respectively. The ∗ indicates that our method performs full fine-tuning.
Method Type
Method
Source
VisEvent
PR
AUC
Multi-modal Trackers
PEFT
SDMoEA-L
Ours
81.3
61.9
SDMoEA-B
Ours
80.3
61.2
SeqTrackv2-L
arXiv’23
80.0
63.4
SeqTrackv2-B
arXiv’23
79.3
62.2
XTrack-L
ICCV’25
80.5
63.3
TABLE II: Overall performance on VisEvent. Results are reported in percentage (%). PEFT and FFT represent parameter-efficient fine-tuning and full fine-tuning, respectively. The ∗ indicates that our method performs full fine-tuning.
Method
Source
COESOT
PR
AUC
SDMoEA*-L
Ours
85.1
70.3
SDMoEA*-B
Ours
84.4
69.3
SDMoEA-L
Ours
83.2
68.8
SDMoEA-B
Ours
83.6
68.4
DS-MESA [ 55 ]
PRCV’24
77.5
69.1
TABLE III: Overall performance on COESOT. Results are reported in percentage (%). The ∗ indicates that our method performs full fine-tuning.
Method Type
Method
Source
VOT-RGBD2022
DepthTrack
EAO
Acc.
Rob.
F-score
Re
Pr
Multi-modal Trackers
PEFT
SDMoEA-L
Ours
78.4
83.0
94.2
69.1
68.4
68.8
SDMoEA-B
Ours
78.3
81.9
94.9
64.7
65.2
65.0
XTrack-L [ 12 ]
ICCV’25
74.0
82.8
88.9
64.8
64.3
65.4
XTrack-B [ 12 ]
ICCV’25
74.0
82.1
88.8
61.5
62.0
61.8
SeqTrackv2-L [ 11 ]
arXiv’23
74.8
82.6
91.0
62.3
62.6
62.5
TABLE IV: Overall performance on VOT-RGBD2022 and DepthTrack. Results are reported in percentage (%). PEFT and FFT represent parameter-efficient fine-tuning and full fine-tuning, respectively. The ∗ indicates that our method performs full fine-tuning.
Method
SDMoE
MFF
GSAHF-MHG
GSAHF-Gram
Params
GFLOPs
LasHeR
VisEvent
PR
SR
PR
SR
I
97.43 M
170.17
60.9
47.9
66.9
45.0
II
✓
105.88 M
173.15
74.3
59.0
79.3
60.4
III
✓
100.97 M
174.27
65.6
51.3
77.4
57.6
IV
✓
102.15 M
175.63
68.0
53.8
78.5
59.0
V
✓
101.56 M
176.99
70.8
56.1
78.9
59.1
TABLE V: Ablation studies of different components of the proposed method on the testing sets of LasHeR and VisEvent. Results are reported in percentage (%).
Method
LasHeR
VisEvent
PR
NPR
SR
PR
NPR
SR
SDMoEA-odd
75.3
71.3
59.3
80.1
75.7
60.9
SDMoEA-even
71.7
68.2
56.7
80.4
75.1
60.8
SDMoEA
76.5
72.6
60.3
80.3
75.5
61.2
TABLE VI: Performance comparison of embedding SDMOE in odd and even layers of the backbone network on LasHeR and VisEvent. Results are reported in percentage (%).
Method
LasHeR
VisEvent
PR
NPR
SR
PR
NPR
SR
SDMoEA-spare
74.0
70.4
58.5
79.2
74.9
60.4
SDMoEA-dense
74.9
71.5
59.1
80.5
75.9
61.2
SDMoEA
76.5
72.6
60.3
80.3
75.5
61.2
TABLE VII: Performance comparison of sparse MoE and dense-shared of SDMoE on LasHeR and VisEvent. Results are reported in percentage (%).
Fig. 5: Visualization results on multi-modal tracking datasets.
Fig. 6: Visualization of feature maps. The first to sixth columns are the RGB input, Thermal or Event input, the feature map of our method, class activation mappingand of our method, the feature map of baseline method, class activation mapping of baseline method, respectively.
School of Artificial Intelligence (School of Software), Yanshan University · School of Software, Beihang University · Hebei Key Laboratory of Computer Virtual Technology and System Integration +3
School of Artificial Intelligence and Computer Science, Jiangnan University, Wuxi 214122, China · Centre for Vision, Speech and Signal Processing, University of Surrey, GU2 7XH Guildford, U.K.