Organizations: School of Automation and Electrical Engineering, University of Science and Technology Beijing, Beijing 100083, China, and also with the Beijing Engineering Research Center of Industrial Spectrum Imaging, Beijing 100083, China · College of Software, Nankai University, Tianjin 300350, China · Department of Automation, BNRist, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China
Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) has recently emerged as a pivotal research direction for adapting pre-trained point cloud transformers to diverse downstream tasks. Although existing methods achieve excellent fine-tuning performance with high parameter efficiency, they ignore inference efficiency. To tackle this problem, a novel PEFT method termed position anchor tuning (PAT) is proposed in this paper. As multi-head attention (MHA) and feed-forward network (FFN) are computation-heavy blocks in pre-trained transformers, PAT decreases their computational cost through token aggregation-expansion pairs. Each pair comprises a token aggregation module (TAM) and a token expansion module (TEM). For MHA and FFN blocks, TAMs extract representative tokens from their input tokens based on position anchors in 3D space. These extracted tokens, rather than the original input tokens, are processed by the blocks, thereby reducing the number of tokens involved in computation. Then, TEMs propagate the learned representations back to the original input tokens. Since TAMs are solely responsible for capturing task-specific representations, base-sharing low-rank adaptation (BSLoRA) is further introduced to enable them to learn such representations effectively with only a small number of trainable parameters. Extensive experiments on widely used benchmarks demonstrate that PAT performs comparably to state-of-the-art methods while incurring significantly lower computational overhead and fewer trainable parameters.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Inference differences between PAT and existing 3D PEFT methods in MHA/FFN blocks. p , n , and m ( m<n ) represent the number of prompt tokens, patch tokens, and extracted tokens, respectively. Existing 3D PEFT methods include two cases: increasing the number of input tokens (Case 1) and keeping the input tokens unchanged (Case 2).
Fig. 2: Illustration of PAT. For the convenience of presentation, the 3D spatial information required by TAMs and TEMs, including point patch positions {Pi}i=1n , position anchors {Ai}i=1m , and the attention maps {AMi}i=1m between position anchors and their neighbors, is processed within the PI module. TAMs, inserted before MHA or FFN blocks, extract m anchor tokens from n patch tokens based on the provided information, and then apply BSLoRA to effectively adapt these anchor tokens to downstream tasks in a parameter-efficient way.
Fig. 3: Parameter reduction (%) achieved by BSLoRA compared to LoRA for varying values of b .
Pre-trained model
Fine-tuning strategy
Reference
#Param. (M)
#GFLOPs
ScanObjectNN
ModelNet40
OBJ_BG
OBJ_ONLY
PB_T50_RS
Point-MAE [ 8 ]
Full
22.1 (100%)
4.76(-)
90.02
88.29
85.18
93.2
IDPT [ 19 ]
ICCV 23
1.7 (7.69%)
7.1( ↑ 49.16% )
91.22 ( +1.20 )
90.02 ( +1.73 )
84.94( -0.24 )
93.3( +0.1 )
DAPT [ 23 ]
CVPR 24
1.1 (4.97%)
5.0( ↑ 5.04% )
90.88( +0.86 )
90.19 ( +1.90 )
85.08( -0.10 )
93.5 ( +0.3 )
Point-PEFT [ 47 ]
AAAI 24
0.7 (3.13%)
7.6( ↑ 37.37% )
89.67( -0.35 )
88.98( +0.69 )
84.91( -0.27 )
93.3( +0.1 )
PointGST [ 18 ]
TPAMI 25
0.6 (2.77%)
4.8 ( ↑ 0.84% )
91.74 ( +1.72 )
90.19 ( +1.90 )
85.29( +0.11 )
93.5 ( +0.3 )
TABLE I: Classification accuracy (%) on the ModelNet40 dataset and three variants of the ScanObjectNN dataset. #Param. (M) denotes the average number of trainable parameters in millions. #GFLOPs denotes the average inference GFLOPs of backbones. Among 3D PEFT methods, the best results are in bold and the second-best results are underlined.
Method
Reference
5-way
10-way
10-shot
20-shot
10-shot
20-shot
Pre-trained Point-MAE backbone
+ Full [ 8 ]
ECCV 22
96.3 ± 2.5
97.8 ± 1.8
92.6 ± 4.1
95.0 ± 3.0
+ IDPT [ 19 ]
ICCV 23
97.3 ± 2.1
97.9 ± 1.1
92.8 ± 4.1
95.4 ± 2.9
+ DAPT [ 23 ]
CVPR 24
96.8 ± 1.8
98.0 ± 1.0
93.0 ± 3.5
95.5 ± 3.2
+ Point-PEFT [ 47 ]
AAAI 24
95.5 ± 2.9
97.6 ± 1.7
91.7 ± 4.3
94.7 ± 3.0
TABLE II: Few-shot classification results on the ModelNet40 dataset. Results are reported as mean accuracy (%) ± standard deviation (%) over 10 independent experiments.
Method
Reference
ΔG
Params. (M)
CmIoU(%)
ImIoU(%)
Pre-trained Point-MAE backbone
+ Full [ 8 ]
ECCV 22
-
27.06
84.19
86.1
+ IDPT [ 19 ]
ICCV 23
↑
5.69
83.79
85.7
+ DAPT [ 23 ]
CVPR 24
↑
5.65
84.01
85.7
+ Point-PEFT [ 47 ]
AAAI 24
↑
5.62
83.20
85.2
+ PointGST [ 18 ]
TPAMI 25
↑
5.59
83.81
85.8
TABLE III: Part segmentation performance on the ShapeNetPart dataset. CmIoU (%) and ImIoU (%) denote the class-mean and instance-mean mIoU, respectively.
Notation
Local Information
Base-Sharing
SRT
Accuracy (%)
PAT_L&B&S
×
×
×
74.91
PAT_L&S
×
✓
×
80.81
PAT_L
×
✓
✓
82.89
PAT_B&S
✓
×
×
75.99
PAT_S
✓
✓
×
84.14
PAT
✓
✓
✓
85.46
TABLE IV: Ablation experiments on the PB_T50_RS dataset.
Fig. 4: Performance verification of BSLoRA.
Method
Shape Classification
Few-Shot Learning
#Param. (M)
#GFLOPs
OBJ_BG
OBJ_ONLY
PB_T50_RS
ModelNet40
5w10s
5w20s
10w10s
10w20s
Full
360.5 (100%)
67.71(-)
97.2
96.6
93.4
94.1
98.0 ± 1.9
99.0 ± 1.0
91.1 ± 3.3
96.1 ± 2.8
IDPT [ 19 ]
10.0 (2.77%)
75.19( ↑ 11.05% )
98.11( +0.91 )
96.04( -0.56 )
92.99( -0.41 )
93.4( -0.7 )
96.8 ± 2.0
98.3 ± 1.4
95.3 ± 2.5
96.5 ± 2.5
DAPT [ 23 ]
4.2 (1.17%)
71.64( ↑ 5.80% )
98.11( +0.91 )
96.21( +0.39 )
93.02( -0.38 )
94.2( +0.1 )
97.2 ± 3.4
98.4 ± 1.3
95.9 ± 2.7
97.3 ± 2.4
Point-PEFT [ 47 ]
3.1 (0.86%)
73.62( ↑ 8.73% )
96.39( -0.81 )
94.66( -1.94 )
92.85( -0.55 )
93.5( -0.6 )
95.7 ± 2.5
98.0 ± 1.8
94.8 ± 2.7
96.3 ± 2.4
PointGST [ 18 ]
2.4 (0.67%)
67.98 ( ↑ 0.40% )
98.97 ( +1.77 )
97.59 ( +0.99 )
94.83 ( +1.43 )
94.8 ( +0.7 )
97.4 ± 2.0
99.6 ± 0.5
96.3 ± 3.6
97.6 ± 2.9
TABLE V: Classification accuracy (%) of different fine-tuning methods using the pre-trained PointGPT-L backbone. “ x w y s” denotes the x -way y -shot setting.
Method
ΔG
Params. (M)
CmIoU(%)
ImIoU(%)
Full
-
339.39
84.80
86.6
IDPT [ 19 ]
↑
33.17
82.91
85.1
DAPT [ 23 ]
↑
33.85
83.03
85.2
Point-PEFT [ 47 ]
↑
31.94
82.34
84.9
PointGST [ 18 ]
↑
31.85
83.91
85.8
PAT
↓ 12.0%
31.56
83.96
85.6
TABLE VI: Part segmentation results of different fine-tuning methods using the pre-trained PointGPT-L backbone.
Fig. 5: Comparisons of mAcc and mIoU on the S3DIS dataset.
Fig. 6: Comparisons of the number of trainable parameters and the inference GFLOPs of the backbone on the S3DIS dataset.
Fig. 7: Comparisons of AP25 and AP50 on the ScanNetV2 dataset.
Fig. 8: Comparisons of the number of trainable parameters and the inference GFLOPs of the backbone on the ScanNetV2 dataset.
Fig. 9: Inference speed comparisons with varying batch sizes.
Fig. 10: Comparisons of GPU memory at a batch size of 8.
Method
Design for
ΔG
Params. (M)
Accuracy(%)
Full
-
22.1
85.18
Adapter [ 16 ]
NLP
↑
0.9
83.93
Prefix tuning [ 27 ]
NLP
↑
0.7
77.72
LoRA [ 12 ]
NLP
-
0.9
81.74
DEPT [ 15 ]
NLP
↑
0.3
79.70
FourierFT [ 61 ]
NLP
-
0.3
78.57
TABLE VII: Comparisons with representative PEFT methods designed for NLP and 2D vision on the PB_T50_RS dataset.
Fine-tuning pre-trained point-cloud backbones typically updates all parameters, resulting in substantial computation and memory overhead. More importantly, modern point backbones rely on aggressive tokenization and downsampling, which yields compact global tokens but irreversibly discards fine-grained local geometry, an inherent bottleneck for parameter-efficient adaptation. Consequently, existing PEFT methods that operate only on these coarsened tokens can modulate global semantics but struggle to recover the missing multi-scale locality. We present Point Ladder Tuning (PLT), a locality-aware PEFT framework that performs hierarchical, instance-conditioned adaptation while keeping the backbone frozen. PLT forms a lightweight closed loop: (i) a Hierarchical Ladder Network (HLN) constructs a multi-resolution local feature pyramid directly from raw points; (ii) a Local-Global Fusion (LGF) aligns and fuses local pyramids with intermediate backbone semantics; and (iii) a Dynamic Prompt Generator produces instance-aware multi-scale prompts to modulate the frozen backbone effectively. For dense prediction, we further introduce a lightweight segmentation head that progressively upsamples fused features and leverages backbone priors to refine fine structures. Extensive experiments on classification and dense prediction show that PLT consistently surpasses prior PEFT baselines with minimal tunable parameters. PLT achieves state-of-the-art performance using only 2.71% trainable parameters for classification and 7.69% for dense prediction, and scales favorably to larger backbones, requiring merely 0.36% parameters on PointGPT-L. The code is released at https://github.com/JunLinChang/ECCV2026-PLT.
Pre-trained 3D point cloud foundation models (PFMs) have demonstrated strong transferability across diverse downstream tasks. However, full fine-tuning these models is computationally expensive and storage-intensive. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) offers a promising alternative, but existing PEFT approaches are primarily designed for Transformer-based backbones and rely on token-level prompting or feature transformation. Mamba-based backbones introduce a granularity mismatch between token-level adaptation and state-level sequence dynamics. Consequently, straightforward transfer of existing PEFT approaches to frozen Mamba backbones leads to substantial accuracy degradation and unstable optimization. To address this issue, we propose Mantis, the first Mamba-native PEFT framework for 3D PFMs. Specifically, a State-Aware Adapter (SAA) is introduced to inject lightweight task-conditioned control signals into selective state-space updates, enabling state-level adaptation while keeping the pre-trained backbone frozen. Moreover, different valid point cloud serializations are regularized by Dual-Serialization Consistency Distillation (DSCD), thereby reducing serialization-induced instability. Extensive experiments across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that Mantis achieves competitive performance while training less than 5% of the backbone parameters.
Zihao Guo, Yiding Sun, Jihua Zhu +3
Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an, China · Peking University, Beijing, China · School of Artificial Intelligence and Robotics, Hunan University, China +1
Modern neural architectures for 3D point cloud processing contain both convolutional layers and attention blocks, but the best way to assemble them remains unclear. We analyse the role of different computational blocks in 3D point cloud networks and find an intuitive behaviour: convolution is adequate to extract low-level geometry at high-resolution in early layers, where attention is expensive without bringing any benefits; attention captures high-level semantics and context in low-resolution, deep layers more efficiently, where convolution inflates the parameter count. Guided by this design principle, we propose a new, improved 3D point cloud backbone that employs convolutions in early stages and switches to attention for deeper layers. To avoid the loss of spatial layout information when discarding redundant convolution layers, we introduce a novel, parameter-free 3D positional encoding, PointROPE. The resulting LitePT model has 3.6× fewer parameters, runs 2× faster, and uses 2× less memory than the state-of-the-art Point Transformer V3, but nonetheless matches or outperforms it on a range of tasks and datasets. Code and models are available at: https://github.com/prs-eth/LitePT.
Yuanwen Yue, Damien Robert, Jianyuan Wang +4
ETH Zurich · University of Oxford · University of Zurich