Organizations: China-UAE Belt and Road Joint Laboratory on Intelligent Unmanned Systems of School of Aerospace Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China · School of Information and Computing Science, Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, 215123, China
Air-to-air tracking of swarm UAVs presents significant challenges due to the complex nonlinear group motion and weak visual cues for small objects, which often cause detection failures, trajectory fragmentation, and identity switches. Although existing methods have attempted to improve performance by incorporating trajectory prediction, they model each object independently, neglecting the swarm-level motion dependencies. Their limited integration between motion prediction and appearance representation also weakens the spatio-temporal consistency required for tracking in visually ambiguous and cluttered environments, making it difficult to maintain coherent trajectories and reliable associations. To address these challenges, we propose SCT-MOT, a tracking framework that integrates Swarm-Coupled motion modeling and Trajectory-guided feature fusion. First, we develop a Swarm Motion-Aware Trajectory Prediction (SMTP) module jointly models historical trajectories and posture-aware appearance features from a swarm-level perspective, enabling more accurate forecasting of the nonlinear, coupled group trajectories. Second, we design a Trajectory-Guided Spatio-Temporal Feature Fusion (TG-STFF) module aligns predicted positions with historical visual cues and deeply integrates them with current frame features, enhancing temporal consistency and spatial discriminability for weak objects. Extensive experiments on three public air-to-air swarm UAV tracking datasets, including AIRMOT, MOT-FLY, and UAVSwarm, demonstrate that SMTP achieves more accurate trajectory forecasts and yields a 1.21% IDF1 improvement over the state-of-the-art trajectory prediction module EqMotion when integrated into the same MOT framework. Overall, our SCT-MOT consistently achieves superior accuracy and robustness compared to state-of-the-art trackers across multiple metrics under complex swarm scenarios.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Key challenges in air-to-air swarm UAV tracking. (a) Swarm UAVs exhibit highly coupled and nonlinear group behavior. The left image is the raw input frame; the right shows the corresponding annotated ground-truth trajectories. (b) Due to extremely micro object sizes and weak visual features, tracking performance is easily affected by background noise and similar distractors, leading to issues such as misassociation, false tracking, and missed detections. The left image shows ground-truth annotations, while the right presents the tracking results generated by HOMATracker. Orange boxes denote correct tracklets, red boxes indicate false positive tracklets and yellow boxes indicate missed tracklets.
Fig. 5: Trajectory prediction comparison between different modules in air-to-air swarm tracking. Red dots and arrows denote the ground-truth positions and motion directions; yellow dots and arrows indicate the predicted positions and directions by the proposed SMTP module; green ones represent the predictions by EqMotion. Orange boxes highlight areas where SMTP predictions are more closely aligned with the ground-truth trajectories. The subfigures illustrate representative sequences from the UAVSwarm and AIRMOT datasets: (a) UAVSwarm-40, (b) UAVSwarm-58, and (c) AIRMOT-01.
T
MOTA ↑
IDF1 ↑
HOTA ↑
IDSW ↓
AIRMOT
4
33.63
30.04
25.51
457
8
32.30
30.15
25.54
476
12
31.89
29.61
25.47
498
16
31.12
28.85
25.38
513
UAVSwarm
TABLE I: Evaluation of the SCT-MOT with SMTP module on AIRMOT and UAVSwarm datasets. ↑ indicates higher is better, ↓ indicates lower is better. Best results are highlighted in bold .
algorithms
MOTA ↑
IDF1 ↑
HOTA ↑
IDSW ↓
AIRMOT
SCT-MOT-SMTP
32.30
30.15
25.54
476
SCT-MOT-EqMotion
31.91
28.94
24.92
478
UAVSwarm
SCT-MOT-SMTP
81.90
88.45
68.56
56
SCT-MOT-EqMotion
80.95
87.08
67.42
73
TABLE II: Comparison of different trajectory prediction modules for Multi-Object Tracking on AIRMOT and UAVSwarm test sets.
Fig. 6: Visualization of feature fusion in the TG-STFF module. From left to right: ground-truth frame, raw feature map, fused feature map using the IMA strategy, and fused feature map using TG-STFF module. Orange boxes: correct detections; red: false positives; yellow: missed detections.
Fig. 7: Performance comparison of SCT-MOT with existing MOT methods on AIRMOT and UAVSwarm datasets, different objects are bounding boxes with different colors. Red boxes/arrows denote false positives, while yellow boxes/arrows indicate missed detections.
Algorithms
IMA
TG-STFF
MOTA ↑
IDF1 ↑
HOTA ↑
IDSW ↓
FairMOT
18.19
17.41
17.56
476
FairMOT
✓
21.19
19.78
19.38
516
FairMOT
✓
21.86
21.58
20.41
415
HOMATracker
30.08
29.31
25.55
506
HOMATracker
✓
31.13
28.42
24.83
483
HOMATracker
✓
32.30
30.15
25.54
476
TABLE III: Performance comparison of FairMOT and HOMATracker using different feature fusion strategies on the AIRMOT test set.
Method
IMA
TG-STFF
MOTA ↑
IDF1 ↑
HOTA ↑
IDSW ↓
FairMOT
63.52
54.81
42.10
177
FairMOT
✓
62.13
61.90
47.68
184
FairMOT
✓
62.96
63.52
48.32
172
HOMATracker
72.42
77.64
58.38
20
HOMATracker
✓
72.46
77.90
58.53
18
HOMATracker
✓
72.52
79.31
59.02
18
TABLE IV: Performance comparison of FairMOT and HOMATracker using different feature fusion strategies on the MOT-FLY test set.
Method
IMA
TG-STFF
MOTA ↑
IDF1 ↑
HOTA ↑
IDSW ↓
FairMOT
67.70
73.20
59.20
590
FairMOT
✓
69.66
76.40
59.64
381
FairMOT
✓
71.29
77.50
60.55
372
HOMATracker
79.20
87.10
67.00
58
HOMATracker
✓
79.43
87.76
67.31
49
HOMATracker
✓
81.90
88.45
68.56
56
TABLE V: Performance comparison of FairMOT and HOMATracker using different feature fusion strategies on the UAVSwarm test set.
Method
Publication
MOTA ↑
IDF1 ↑
HOTA ↑
IDSW ↓
FPS ↑
AIRMOT
FairMOT [ 44 ]
IJCV 2021
18.19
17.41
17.56
476
35.2
DeepSORT [ 9 ]
ICIP 2017
19.60
20.45
19.42
2841
33.6
OCSORT [ 23 ]
CVPR 2023
20.88
23.27
22.07
522
40.9
ByteTrack [ 22 ]
ECCV 2022
24.35
25.72
23.56
1707
39.2
MOTRv3 [ 46 ]
ArXiv 2023
23.52
24.89
22.59
1805
20.6
TABLE VI: Performance comparison between the proposed SCT-MOT and other state-of-the-art (SOTA) MOT methods on the AIRMOT, UAVSwarm, and MOT-FLY test sets.
Method
Dataset
MOTA ↑
IDF1 ↑
HOTA ↑
FPS ↑
SCT-MOT
AIRMOT
30.68
28.72
24.31
24.0
MOT-FLY
72.11
75.34
56.12
22.1
UAVSwarm
78.22
84.04
66.71
24.5
ByteTrack-Light
AIRMOT
23.46
24.58
22.86
24.6
MOT-FLY
67.12
69.85
54.26
25.3
UAVSwarm
63.71
75.13
59.60
23.9
TABLE VII: Comparison of tracking accuracy and runtime of lightweight SCT-MOT and baseline tracker on the NVIDIA Jetson Orin NX across AIRMOT, UAVSwarm, and MOT-FLY test sets.
China-UAE Belt and Road Joint Laboratory on Intelligent Unmanned Systems, School of Aerospace Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), China · Southern University of Science and Technology, China and MoSense Technologies, China