PV-RCNN++: Semantical Point-Voxel Feature Interaction for 3D Object Detection

Beyond previous wisdom, we argue that 1) more foreground points are beneficial to capturing pivotal structure and position feature; 2) faster query strategy is needed to relieve the time-consuming interaction between points and voxels; and 3) voxel-wise feature should have a more comprehensive perception of neighboring structure feature instead of local convolution feature. To this end, we present our PV-RCNN++: Semantical Point-Voxel Feature Interaction for 3D object detection, which consists of the following modules: 1) a binary segmentation module is introduced to guide FPS to select more object-related keypoints; 2) voxel query based on Manhattan distance replaces the ball query to quickly sample voxel-wise feature; 3) an attention-based residual PointNet is designed to adaptively fuse the neighboring voxel-wise feature to summarize the nonlocal 3D structure information. Our backbone is illustrated as Fig. 1. Given point cloud $P=\{p_i\mid i=1,2,\mathrm{3...}N\}\subseteq$ $R^{3+d}$ as input, where $N=16384$ and $d$ denotes the point feature (e.g., reflection intensity), our goal is to predict the center location $(x,y,z)$, box size $(l,w,h)$ and rotation angle $\theta$ around $Z-$axis of each object.

First, the unordered point cloud are transformed to uniformed 3D grids with voxel size $v$, and each grid contains $k$ points. Then, the mean Voxel Feature Encoder(VFE) Zhou and Tuzel (2018) is adopted to compute the mean feature of $k$ points as the representative feature of the grid.

3D Voxel CNN. Through mean VFE, the point cloud shapes as a $L\times W\times H$ feature volume. We utilize 3D Sparse Convolutional Neural Networks Yan et al. (2018) to encode the feature volumes with $1\times ,2\times ,4\times ,8\times$ downsample sizes. All four downsampled voxel-wise feature maps are preserved for the subsequent point-voxel interaction module.

3D Region Proposal Network. After 3D Voxel Encoder, the forth 8$\times$ downsampled feature map is compressed to 2D BEV feature map which is of $\frac{L}{8}\times \frac{W}{8}$ resolution. We utilize anchor-based methods Ren et al. (2016) on the BEV feature map to generate 3D anchor boxes with the average size of each class. Considering the rotation angle around $Z$-axis, $0$ and $\frac{\pi }{2}$ degree are set for each anchor pixel. Therefore, the whole BEV map produces $3\times 2\times \frac{L}{8}\times \frac{W}{8}$ proposals in total for three classes: Car, Pedestrian, and Cyclist.

Our motivation is to retain more foreground points to capture more valuable spatial and position information while bringing no burden of time consumption, so we meticulously redesign the PointNet++ to act as our foreground point sampling module. As mentioned in 3D-SSD Yang et al. (2020), despite the FP layer in PointNet++ Qi et al. (2017) can broadcast the semantic feature to all points to improve segmentation precision, it takes much time to upsample points. Therefore, capturing more foreground points in the SA layer would be a better choice. We remove the FP layer in PointNet++ and adopt a semantic-guided sampling strategy in SA layer. We first feed the raw points $P$ with feature $F$ into the segmentation module to compute the score $S$. Then with the guide of $S$, we employ the modified sampling strategy to sample $K$ keypoints in the SA layer. The specific process is shown in Fig. 2 and described as follows.

Binary Segmentation Module. To avoid bringing high computation, we adopt a 2-layer MLP as binary segmentation module to directly obtain the score of point. Concretely, given point feature set $F_k=\{f_1^{d_k},f_2^{d_k},f_3^{d_k},...f_{N_k}^{d_k}\}$, where $d_k$ denotes the $d$-dimension of point feature $f_i^{d_k}$ fed into the $k$-th SA layer, score $s_i\in [0,1]$ of each point is defined as:

where $\Omega$ means the sigmoid function, ${MLP}_k$ represents the segmentation module in $k$-th SA layer. The real segmentation labels can be obtained from ground-truth boxes. We define the points inside the ground-truth boxes as foreground points while the outside as background points. Therefore the loss of the segmentation module can be calculated as:

where $s_i^k$ denotes the predicted score and ${\hat{s}}_i^k$ is the ground-truth label (0 for the background and 1 for the foreground) of the $i$-th point in the $k$-th SA layer. $BCE$ is the binary cross-entropy loss function. $m$ means the number of SA layers, which is set to 4. $N_k\in \{4096,2048,1024,256\}$ is the total number of the input points and ${\lambda }_k\in \{0.1,0.01,0.001,0.0001\}$ is the loss weight of $k$-th SA layer.

Semantic-guided Further Point Sampling. Since we have obtained the point scores from the binary segmentation module, it means that the possible foreground points have been masked. The easiest way to select foreground points is to use Top-K scores as a guide. However, as observed from Fig. 7 and Table 2, it will decrease the perceptual ability of the whole 3D scene if too many foreground points are selected and few background points are involved. Motivated by Chen et al. (2022), we modified the furthest point sampling strategy by adding a score weight called S-FPS. Keeping the basic flow of FPS unchanged, we leverage scores of unselected points to rectify the distances to the selected points. Given point coordinate set $P=\{p_1,p_2,p_3,...p_N\}\subseteq$ $R^3$ and the corresponding score set $S=\{s_1,s_2,s_3,...s_N\}$, the distance set $D=\{d_1,d_2,d_3,...d_N\}$ is the shortest distances of $N$ unselected points to the already selected points. In the original FPS, the point with the longest distance is picked up as the furthest point. However, in S-FPS, we recalculate each distance ${\hat{d}}_i$ with score $s_i$ as the following formula:

where $\gamma$ is an adjustable parameter deciding the importance of the score, which is set to 1 by default. When $\gamma$ is fixed, the closer score $s_i$ is to 1, the greater ${\hat{d}}_i$ is. Hence, S-FPS can select more positive points (i.e., foreground points) compared to FPS. Obviously, S-FPS will be similar to Top-K algorithm if $\gamma =+\infty$. The specific process of S-FPS is shown in Algorithm 1.

The original neighboring voxel sampling strategy in PV-RCNN Shi et al. (2020) employs ball query Qi et al. (2017) to sample 3D voxel feature around keypoints. However, the ball query occupies too much time to compute the Euclidean distance between each voxel and keypoint, which is rather low efficiency. It is worth noting that the voxels are regularly arranged in ordered 3D space, which can be easily accessed by indices. Motivated by Voxel R-CNN Deng et al. (2021), we apply the Manhattan distance to replace the Euclidean distance to compute the query distance. Differently, we directly operate on keypoints while Voxel R-CNN operates on 3D proposal grids, which makes our approach take less computation but focus more on critical information.

Point to Voxel Coordinate. The coordinates of selected keypoints must be transformed to voxel coordinates to query voxel indices in the corresponding 3D voxel feature map. Given point coordinate $[x_p,y_p,z_p]$, voxel size $[v_x,v_y,v_z]$, point cloud range $[x_{min},x_{max},y_{min},y_{max},z_{min},z_{max}]$, and 3D CNN downsample stride $c_k$, the voxel coordinate $[x_v,y_v,z_v]$ in the $k$-th 3D voxel feature map can be calculated as follows:

Voxel Query. Compared to ball query, voxel query utilize a positive integer $I$ (default $I=4$) as query range to produce offsets $\{{△}_x,{△}_y,{△}_z\mid △\in [-I,+I\left]\right\}$ to access the neighboring voxels around center voxel $[x_v,y_v,z_v]$. To determine whether a neighboring voxel is within the query radius, a distance radius threshold is set to compute the Manhattan distance. To be concrete, given the center voxel coordinate $[x_v,y_v,z_v]$ and queried voxel coordinate $[x_q,y_q,z_q]$, the Manhattan distance $d_{man}$ can be computed as:

To sample $M$ nearby voxels in total $N$ voxels, the ball query needs to compute distance $N$ times while the voxel query only needs $K$ times $(M<K<N)$, where $K$ is the number of neighboring voxels around the center voxel, reducing the time complexity from $O\left(N\right)$ to $O\left(K\right)$.

In previous work Shi et al. (2020), a simple PointNet-like MLP is directly adopted to aggregate the coarse feature of sampled voxels. Nevertheless, each queried voxel feature contributes unequally to learning the local structure information. 3D sparse convolution operation limits the voxel’s ability to better understand the neighboring 3D structure and semantic information. Therefore, we consider how to adaptively focus on the crucial voxel-wise feature to obtain more comprehensive and important features.

Attention mechanism Vaswani et al. (2017) has shown its great power in various visual tasks. Benefiting from the self-attention mechanism, the model can obtain a larger receptive field to summarize the nonlocal feature. We note that sampled voxel-wise feature by voxel query can provide different structure and spatial information from different areas of the point cloud. Hence, we propose an Attention-based Residual PointNet Aggregation module to adaptively aggregate the voxel-wise feature from the hotspot area of the point cloud.

Voxel Attention Module. As shown in Fig. 4, given feature set $F=\{f_1,f_2,f_3,...f_N\}\in R^{d_f\cdot N}$ of $N$ sampled voxels by voxel query, queries $Q$, keys $K$ and values $V$ are generated from $F$ as following formula:

where $W^q\in R^{d_k\cdot d_f},W^k\in R^{d_k\cdot d_f},W^v\in R^{d_v\cdot d_f}$ are linear projections consisting of learnable matrices. Then the attention weights $S_i=\{s_1^i,s_2^i,...,s_N^i\mid i\in [1,N\left]\right\}$ of the $i$-th query are calculated by softmax function on dot-product similarity between keys $K_i$ and queries $Q_i$:

where $d_k$ is a scaling factor, which is set to the length of the voxel-wise feature dimension. Since we have got the attention weights of each query, then we generate the fine-grained values ${\hat{V}}_i\in R^{d_v}$ by computing the weighted sum of $V\in R^{d_v\cdot N}$:

Finally, we add the weighted value $\hat{V}\in R^{d_v\cdot N}$ and original voxel-wise feature $F\in R^{d_f\cdot N}$ to represent the attention feature $\tilde{V}\in R^{(d_v+d_f)\cdot N}$.

Residual PointNet Aggregation. Through the self-attention mechanism, each voxel point integrates the weighted feature from surrounding voxels and can adaptively focus on the hotspot area of local structure information. Next, the weighted values $\tilde{V}=\{v_1,v_2,v_3,...v_N\}$ are fed into a feed-forward network to produce the final feature. Different from Transformer Vaswani et al. (2017), which adopts simple linear layers, we propose a lightweight residual PointNet to forward the weighted values. As illustrated in Fig. 5, given weighted values $\tilde{V}$, a plug-and-play module composed of Convolution1D, Batch Normalization and Relu is stacked in a skip-connection way to extract the feature of $\tilde{V}$. In the end, we adopt the MaxPooling function to produce the representative voxel aggregation feature.

As shown in Fig. 1, besides summarizing the voxel-wise feature, keypoints $P=\{p_1,p_2,p_3,...p_k\}$ also concatenate the grouped feature from raw points and BEV features, which make keypoints rich in 3D spatial feature and semantic feature. Next, all the keypoint feature $\hat{F}=\{f_1,f_2,f_3,...f_N\}$ are fed to the second stage, RoI-grid pooling, to refine the 3D proposals generated by RPN to achieve more accurate and robust results. RoI-grid pooling uniformly divides each 3D proposal into $6\times 6\times 6$ grids which can be denoted as $G=\{g_1,g_2,g_3,...g_{216}\}$. Benefiting from our foreground sampling module, the keypoint feature contains more object-related feature, which makes each grid $g_i$ contain more informative foreground keypoints. Specifically, given a radius $\tilde{r}$ and grid point $g_j$, the feature $f_i$ of keypoint $p_i$ is grouped if the keypoint is within $\tilde{r}$. The grouped keypoint feature set $K$ is defined as follows:

where $p_i-g_j$ is the relative location from $p_i$ to $g_j$, which is concatenated to the feature $f_i$. Then the grouped keypoint feature set $K$ is fed to a PointNet-like Qi et al. (2017) module to produce a refined feature. After obtaining the refined RoI-grid feature of each proposal, a 2-layer MLP is adopted to vectorize the RoI-grid feature to 256 dimensions to represent the final feature.

Our method is an end-to-end trainable network, which is optimized by a multi-task loss $L_{total}$ as follows:

As we have mentioned in Sec 3.3, the segmentation loss $L_{seg}$ is computed by binary cross-entropy loss on sampled keypoints in SA layers. Similar to Yan et al. (2018), $L_{rpn}$ is composed of three partial loss:

where ${\alpha }_1,{\alpha }_2,{\alpha }_3$ are assigned $\{1.0,2.0,0.2\}$ to represent the weight coefficient of object classification loss $L_{cls}$, location regression loss $L_{loc}$, and direction regression loss $L_{dir}$ respectively. To avoid the case in which our model is stuck in determining the directions of objects, we give ${\alpha }_3$ a relatively small parameter. To be concrete, $L_{cls}$ is computed by focal loss introduced by RetinaNet Lin et al. (2017) due to the large imbalance between the foreground and background classes. $L_{loc}$ is optimized by smooth-L1 loss function for box regression and $L_{dir}$ is computed by sine-error loss Yan et al. (2018) for angle regression.

$L_{rcnn}$ Shi et al. (2020) is the loss of between RoIs and ground-truth labels, which consists of the classification confidence loss $L_{rcnn\_cls}$, location regression loss $L_{rcnn\_loc}$, and box corner loss $L_{rcnn\_corner}$ in the refinement stage. The computation of $L_{rcnn}$ is defined as follows:

where $L_{rcnn\_cls}$ is optimized with the binary cross-entropy loss function, and $L_{rcnn\_loc}$ and $L_{rcnn\_corner}$ are optimaized smooth-L1 loss function as in Shi et al. (2020); Yan et al. (2018).

Besides, after the whole 3D scene is summarized into a small number of keypoints, it is reasonable to re-weight them to ensure that the foreground point feature has greater weights to contribute more to the refinement stage. As demonstrated in Fig. 6, the re-weighting loss of keypoints $L_{key}$ is computed by the focal loss Lin et al. (2017) between predicted keypoint scores and true labels in ground-truth boxes.

KITTI. KITTI Dataset Geiger et al. (2012) is one of the most popular benchmarks for 3D object detection in autonomous driving. It collects 7481 LiDAR point cloud frames for training and 7518 for testing. Although LiDAR scans the ${360}^{\circ }$ point cloud scene, only the objects in Field of Vision (FOV) are annotated with 3D boxes. Specifically, the training dataset is divided into train split (3712 samples) and val split (3769 samples) for our experiments. When submitting the test results to the KITTI server, we train 90$\%$ training data to obtain a robust and highly generalized model.

Voxelization. For KITTI Dataset, we only use the FOV point cloud as raw data. The range of FOV field is $[0,70.4]$ meters along $X$-axis, $[-40,40]$ meters along $Y$-axis and $[-3,1]$ meters along $Z$-axis, which is regularly divided into regularly arranged voxels with voxel size $0.05m\times 0.05m\times 0.1m$.

Sampling Strategy Setting. In the foreground point sampling module, we place four SA layers for summarizing the semantic feature with different numbers of keypoints. Before SA layers, we sample 16384 points from the raw points as input. For the reason that raw points have no segmentation scores, we adopt the original FPS in the first SA layer to sample 4096 keypoints. Then, in the next three SA layers, we utilize S-FPS to sample 2048, 1024, and 256 keypoints according to the segmentation scores.

Network Architecture. As shown in Fig. 1, the point cloud is input in the form of quantitative voxels with the resolution of $1600\times 1408\times 40\times 8$ and sampled 16384 points by FPS. First, the voxel-based backbone leverages 3D Voxel CNN with $1\times ,2\times ,4\times ,8\times$ downsample sizes to produce four voxel-wise feature maps with 16, 32, 64, and 64 output dimensions. Following the last 3D CNN layer, the output feature map is of the resolution of $200\times 176\times 2\times 128$. Once the feature map is reshaped to $200\times 176\times 256$, the RPN Yan et al. (2018) network is applied to generate 3D proposals. For the Voxel Query in Sec 3.4, we set the query range $I$ to 4 and sample 16 neighboring voxels around query point. Hence, the size of each attention map in Voxel Atttention Module is $16\times 16$. In the residual PointNet, the output dimension of Convolution1D is set to 32. The 16384 raw points are input to the Foreground Point Sampling module which consists of 4 subsequent SA layers. Each SA layer has 2 multi-scale radii $r\in \left\{\right[0.1m,0.5m],[0.5m,1.0m],[1.0m,2.0m],[2.0m,4.0m\left]\right\}$ to group neighbouring points which are input to 2-layer MLP to classify the foreground and background. Then, the sampled keypoints from SA layer integrate the point-wise feature, voxel-wise feature, and 2D BEV feature to summarize the critical information of the 3D scene. In the end, RoI-grid pooling divides the proposal box into $6\times 6\times 6$ grids to refine the proposals with the aggregation of feature-rich keypoints within 0.6m and 0.8m radius.

Training and Inference. Concretely, the model is trained 80 epochs with Adam optimizer and the learning rate is initially set to 0.01 updated by one-cycle policy. We conduct the experiments on one RTX 3090 GPU with batch size 4, which takes about 36 hours.

During training, to avoid over-fitting, we leverage data augmentation strategies like Yan et al. (2018). We use GT-sampling to paste some foreground instances from other point cloud scenes to current training frame. Besides, augmentation operations like random flip along $X$-axis, random rotation with angle range in $[-\frac{\pi }{4},\frac{\pi }{4}]$, and random scaling with a random scaling factor in $[0.95,1.05]$ are adopted to enhance the generalization and robustness of the model. At the RoI refinement stage, we sample 128 proposals from RPN and set the threshold ${\theta }_{fg}=$ 0.55 to classify the foreground objects and background objects. Half of them are recognized as foreground objects if the 3D Intersection over Union(IoU) with the ground-truth box is over ${\theta }_{fg}$ while the lower is determined to be the background.

At the inference stage, we employ non-maximum-suppression(NMS) on the 3D proposals with the threshold of 0.7 to filter out top-100 proposals as the input of the refinement module. Then, in RoI Grid Pooling, proposals are further refined with the feature-rich keypoints. Subsequently, NMS is adopted again with a threshold of 0.1 to remove redundant predictions.

Evaluation Metrics. We follow the evaluation criteria that the KITTI benchmark provides to ensure accuracy and fairness. The IoU threshold is set to 0.7 for Car and 0.5 for both Pedestrian and Cyclist. The results reported to the official KITTI test server are calculated by average precision(AP) setting of recall 40 positions to compare with the state-of-the-art methods.

We demonstrate the test results returned from the KITTI test server in Table 1 with the comparison of performance on 3D detection. For the most critical Car detection, we surpass the PV-RCNN by $2.55\%,0.20\%,0.07\%$ on easy, moderate, and hard levels. It is worth noting that our method improves greatly on the Cyclist class, surpassing PV-RCNN by $4.89\%,5.09\%,4.36\%$ on three levels. However, our method achieves inferior results on the Pedestrian class compared with the state-of-the-art methods, where we think the segmentation module has limited ability to classify the small foreground objects like Pedestrian, and S-FPS tends to select keypoints on the big foreground objects like the Car and Cyclist.

To comprehensively verify the effectiveness of our method, we conduct ablation studies on Foreground Point Sampling, Voxel query, Voxel Attention Module, and Residual PointNet, respectively.

Effectiveness of Foreground Point Sampling. In this part, we test the influence of the different numbers of foreground points on detection precision, as shown in Table 2. It seems feasible that the more foreground points get caught, the more accurate the result will be. Therefore, we set $\gamma$ in Equation 3 with 1, 2, 3, and 100 to increase the number of sampled foreground points. However, it turns out that when $\gamma$ becomes larger, the performance decrease instead. The reason is that sampling excessive foreground points with few background points (like the Top-K sampling strategy) makes it hard for the model to have a global perception of the whole 3D scene, which limits its ability to precisely locate the correct objects. As demonstrated in Fig. 7, when $\gamma =1$, the sampled keypoints can focus on foreground objects and preserve proper background points at the same time.

Effectiveness of Voxel Query. The function of Voxel Query is to boost the speed of voxel sampling while bringing no loss of performance. Table 3 shows the 3D detection precision for Car class and frame per second (FPS) at the condition of ball query and voxel query. We only replace the ball query with the voxel query while keeping other modules unchanged. Results show that the voxel query improves the inference speed but causes no harm to precision.

Effectiveness of Attention-based Residual PointNet. We propose the Voxel Attention Module so that voxel-wise feature can obtain a larger receptive field to integrate other voxels’ feature instead of the only local feature of itself. Besides, a lightweight residual PointNet module is added to efficiently aggregate the voxel-wise feature. As demonstrated in Table 4, the performance is further improved by attention-mechanism with residual PointNet. Fig. 8 shows the voxel-wise attention features encoded into keypoints, where almost the whole object is highly focused on, not only local spatial features are learned, indicating the importance of the attention-based residual PointNet module.

Fig. 9 shows the visualization results on the KITTI dataset. Our model performs stably and makes accurate detection in complex situations, especially in Fig. 9 (B). Moreover, as shown in Table 1, higher average precision on car and cyclist proves the effectiveness of our proposed methods. However, our method still lags behind some state-of-the-art methods for detecting small objects such as pedestrian. The reason is that our segmentation module performs badly to classify small objects, resulting in fewer keypoints on pedestrians retained to integrate valuable feature for refinement.