Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

STREAM: A Universal State-Space Model for Sparse Geometric Data

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Coordinate-difference step sizes give one state-space model a strong inductive bias for sparse geometric data, delivering state-of-the-art point-cloud accuracy and, for the first time, 100% on all 11 DVS128 Gesture classes.

desk verdict A clean derivation and a plausible parameterization, but the point-cloud evidence is confounded and the spatial-geometry claim is not yet isolated. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12603 v2 pith:4RBCJPXM submitted 2024-11-19 cs.CV cs.AIcs.LGcs.NE

Mark Schöne , Yash Bhisikar , Karan Bania , Khaleelulla Khan Nazeer , Christian Mayr , Anand Subramoney , David Kappel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.LGcs.NE
keywords state-spacemodelspointcloudsevent-basedvisionirregularstepsizesMambaDVS128Gesturessparsegeometricdataselectivescan
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that sparse geometric data — point clouds and event-camera streams — should be treated as pulses whose coordinate differences set the step size of a state-space model. It claims this explicit geometric encoding is a strong inductive bias: replacing the Mamba module in PointMamba with this parameterization lifts trained-from-scratch accuracy by up to 2.84% on ScanObjectNN and by 0.3% on ModelNet40. The same model, applied directly to raw event streams without frames or 2D convolutions, is claimed to reach 100% test accuracy on all 11 classes of the DVS128 Gestures dataset, reported for the first time. If the paper is right, one state-space backbone with coordinate-difference step sizes is a competitive universal sequence model for sparse geometric data.

What carries the argument

The central object is the state-space recurrence $h_k = e^{A_k \Delta_k} h_{k-1} + B_k u_k$ with step size $\Delta_k$ set to the coordinate difference $t_k - t_{k-1}$ between consecutive points. This makes the transition matrix an exponentially oscillating kernel that integrates the history of earlier points, and a modified scan primitive parallelizes the irregularly spaced recurrence in $O(\log N)$ time. STREAM is built on Mamba, a selective state-space layer whose step size is normally a learned function of the input; the paper's change is to make that step size carry the geometry explicitly.

What would settle it

Run the STREAM point-cloud model on ScanObjectNN's PB-T50-RS split with the step size $\Delta_k$ forced to a constant (or set by PointMamba's input-dependent rule) while keeping the 3N XYZ-sorted sequence and all other hyperparameters fixed; if accuracy stays near 85.32%, the geometric inductive bias is not what produces the reported gain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the recurrence step $\Delta_k = t_k - t_{k-1}$ of a selective state-space model can act as a geometric operator. Setting $\Delta_k$ to the true coordinate difference between successive points produces a pairwise interaction kernel $\Phi(t_k,t_i) = C_k \prod_{j=i+1}^k \exp(A_j \Delta_j) B_i$ that is computed for all $N$ points in $O(N)$ steps. STREAM replaces Mamba's input-dependent step size with $(t_i - t_{i-1})\Psi(\delta)$, decouples $B_i$ from $\Delta_i$, and sorts point clouds by the X, Y, and Z coordinates instead of using space-filling curves. The paper claims this explicit parameterization of geometry is what drives the point-cloud gains and enables fully event-based processing that attains 100% accuracy on all 11 DVS128 Gesture classes.

Load-bearing premise

The point-cloud accuracy gains are credited to the geometric step-size encoding, but the comparison against PointMamba changes the sequence length, the ordering, and the step-size parameterization at the same time, so no matched test isolates the step-size encoding as the cause.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single state-space backbone with coordinate-difference step sizes competes with specialized point-cloud and event-vision models on the same architecture.
  • Point-cloud sequence models can drop space-filling curve preprocessing and sort by raw X, Y, or Z coordinates without sacrificing accuracy.
  • Event-based recognition without frames or 2D convolutions can reach 100% test accuracy on all 11 DVS128 Gesture classes.
  • The recurrence runs asynchronously in $O(1)$ work per new point or event and trains in $O(\log N)$ parallel steps on long streams.
  • The same parameterization transfers to event-based audio, reaching 86.3% on the Spiking Speech Commands dataset.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A matched ablation varying only the step-size encoding would determine how much of the ScanObjectNN gain comes from geometry rather than from the longer 3N sequence or the simpler XYZ ordering.
  • The coordinate-difference step-size idea likely extends beyond point clouds and events to any irregularly sampled signal, such as LiDAR sweeps, physiological recordings, or financial tick streams.
  • The 100% DVS128 result is achieved with a specific token encoding and CutMix-style event mixing, so rerunning without those augmentations would reveal what part of the perfect score is due to the model's geometric parameterization.
  • The kernel in equation (6) casts STREAM as a continuous convolution with an exponentially oscillating kernel, which connects it to a broader family of kernel-based geometric operators and suggests principled ways to tune the state dimension.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. STREAM proposes to encode the relative coordinate differences of sparse geometric data (point clouds, event streams) directly into the step-size parameter ∆ of a Mamba-style selective state-space model. The paper derives the resulting interaction kernel from a linear time-varying state-space model, describes a modified CUDA kernel for efficient scan-based training, and reports experiments on point cloud classification (ModelNet40, ScanObjectNN) and event-based vision/audio (DVS128 Gestures, Spiking Speech Commands). The central claims are that the explicit geometric step-size parameterization is a powerful inductive bias, improving the PointMamba baseline by up to 2.84% on ScanObjectNN, and that STREAM achieves 100% test accuracy on all 11 classes of DVS128 Gestures.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the proposed geometric step-size encoding is a simple and potentially impactful way to inject inductive bias into state-space models for irregularly sampled data. The mathematical derivation in Appendix 6 is rigorous and standard, correctly identifying the kernel from the continuous-time solution. The event-stream experiments provide some isolated evidence for the benefit of coordinate-derived step sizes (Table 5), and the paper is the first to report 100% accuracy on the full DVS128 Gestures benchmark, albeit as a best-of-seeds result. The main weakness is that the point cloud experiments, which are the primary evidence for the claim on spatial geometry, change multiple factors at once and therefore do not establish the causal role of the proposed step-size encoding.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.1.1, Tables 1–2] The point cloud comparison between STREAM and PointMamba changes three factors simultaneously: the sequence length is increased from 2N to 3N, the ordering is changed from two Hilbert curves to three independent XYZ sorts (with additional learned scale/shift parameters), and the ∆ parameterization is changed from a learned input-dependent function to the coordinate-difference form. The text acknowledges the first two as preprocessing simplifications, but no matched ablation is provided that varies only the step-size encoding. As a result, the reported improvements (+2.84% on ScanObjectNN PB-T50-RS, +0.3% on ModelNet40) cannot be attributed to the claimed inductive bias. I request an ablation that isolates factor (iii), for example PointMamba with the same 3N XYZ-sorted input but the default Mamba ∆, or STREAM with the original Hilbert-curve ordering.
  2. [§4.2.2, Tables 3 and 5] The abstract and contributions state that STREAM 'achieves 100% test accuracy on all 11 classes' of DVS128 Gestures, but the corresponding row in Table 5 (the variant with tk − t(k−1) and no softplus+Linear renormalization) reports a mean of 99.2% with a standard deviation of 0.3 over five seeds. The 100.0% in Table 3 is therefore a best-of-seeds maximum, not the average performance. The manuscript should either report the mean and variance alongside the maximum or qualify the abstract claim explicitly, since the current wording overstates the reliability of the result.
  3. [§3.4, §4.1.1] The point cloud model concatenates three sequences sorted by X, Y, and Z into a single 3N sequence, and the step size is defined as ∆i = ti − ti−1 for the successive coordinates in that concatenated sequence. At the two concatenation boundaries, t jumps from the maximum value of one coordinate to the minimum value of the next (e.g., max X to min Y), producing a large, geometrically meaningless ∆. The paper does not describe any masking, state reset, or other mechanism to handle these boundary discontinuities. This is a concrete technical issue: unless the boundaries are handled explicitly, the claimed 'explicit encoding of geometric structure' is not actually implemented for a substantial fraction of the 3N positions, and the interpretation of the experimental results is unclear. Please clarify how the boundaries are treated.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.1.1] The phrase 'replacing the Mamba module in PointMamba with a STREAM module' is imprecise, because the comparison also changes the preprocessing, sequence length, and ordering; consider stating that the architecture is aligned to PointMamba while changing these additional components.
  2. [§3.2, equation (6)] The indices in the product range from i+1 to k, which is correct for the kernel, but the text says 'pairs of N points' while the sums run from 0 to N, giving N+1 points; please normalize the indexing notation.
  3. [§4.1.1] The paper states that the same hyperparameters as PointMamba are used, but the sequence length differs (3N vs 2N); please state explicitly whether training time or memory differs and how the increased sequence length is handled.
  4. [§1 and §4.2.2] The claim of 'for the first time' 100% on DVS128 is made relative to previous work, but the comparison in Table 3 includes methods with different evaluation protocols (e.g., TENNs-PLEIADES on 10 of 11 classes); this is noted, but the headline claim should also be qualified by the seed-selection issue raised above.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the kernel derivation is standard mathematics and the benchmark results are external evaluations; the PointMamba comparison confound affects causal attribution but is not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. In Section 3.2 and Appendix 6, the kernel Phi(t_k, t_i) = C_k prod exp(A_j Delta_j) B_i and the recurrence h_k = B_k u_k + exp(A_k Delta_k) h_{k-1} are derived by solving the linear time-varying ODE (Eqs. 4-5) for Dirac-delta inputs. This is a parameter-free mathematical derivation that does not assume the target empirical claim that coordinate-difference step sizes improve accuracy. The STREAM parameterization Delta_i = (t_i - t_{i-1}) Psi(delta) in Eq. 11 is a design choice; delta is a trainable parameter optimized on training data, and reported accuracies are held-out test evaluations, so no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The point-cloud comparison with PointMamba changes sequence length, ordering, and Delta simultaneously, which is a real threat to the causal attribution of the gains to the step-size encoding, but this is an experimental validity concern, not a circularity: no equation or fitted parameter is reused as the predicted outcome. The self-citations (Event-SSM [38] and Subramoney et al. [42]) are used for baselines, a CutMix augmentation variant, and related work; none is load-bearing evidence for the central inductive-bias claim, and no uniqueness theorem from the authors' prior work is invoked. I find no step in which a 'prediction' or 'first-principles result' is equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation is self-contained and relies on standard linear ODE theory. The only model-specific free parameter is the learned time scale δ that scales the coordinate differences; all other parameters are standard trainable network weights. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • learnable time scale parameter δ (per state dimension) = learned during training, value not reported
    The step size is set to Δ_i = (t_i - t_{i-1}) Ψ(δ) in Equation (11). This learned scale modulates the geometry-derived step size and is part of the STREAM parameterization; it is not a hand-set constant.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The analytical solution of the linear time-varying ODE (equation 18) is valid.
    Used in appendix 6.1 to derive the interaction kernel; standard calculus result.
  • domain assumption A(t), B(t), C(t) are piecewise constant on intervals (t_{j-1}, t_j], so the product of exponentials factorizes.
    Assumed in Section 6.1 after equation (21) to discretize on the input timestamps; this is a modeling choice, not a physical law.
  • domain assumption Sorting points by coordinates and concatenating the three sorted sequences preserves enough structure for point cloud classification.
    Made in Section 4.1.1 as part of the preprocessing; if false, the point cloud results would not follow.
  • domain assumption The Mamba architecture with selective state spaces is a suitable base model whose properties transfer when the step size is reparameterized.
    The authors replace Mamba's Δ with a coordinate difference but keep the rest of Mamba; they rely on the known performance of Mamba on sequence tasks.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of STREAM: A Universal State-Space Model for Sparse Geometric Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4RBCJPXM

@misc{pith2026241112603,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: STREAM: A Universal State-Space Model for Sparse Geometric Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4RBCJPXM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12603}
}
read the original abstract

Handling sparse and unstructured geometric data, such as point clouds or event-based vision, is a pressing challenge in the field of machine vision. Recently, sequence models such as Transformers and state-space models entered the domain of geometric data. These methods require specialized preprocessing to create a sequential view of a set of points. Furthermore, prior works involving sequence models iterate geometric data with either uniform or learned step sizes, implicitly relying on the model to infer the underlying geometric structure. In this work, we propose to encode geometric structure explicitly into the parameterization of a state-space model. State-space models are based on linear dynamics governed by a one-dimensional variable such as time or a spatial coordinate. We exploit this dynamic variable to inject relative differences of coordinates into the step size of the state-space model. The resulting geometric operation computes interactions between all pairs of N points in O(N) steps. Our model deploys the Mamba selective state-space model with a modified CUDA kernel to efficiently map sparse geometric data to modern hardware. The resulting sequence model, which we call STREAM, achieves competitive results on a range of benchmarks from point-cloud classification to event-based vision and audio classification. STREAM demonstrates a powerful inductive bias for sparse geometric data by improving the PointMamba baseline when trained from scratch on the ModelNet40 and ScanObjectNN point cloud analysis datasets. It further achieves, for the first time, 100% test accuracy on all 11 classes of the DVS128 Gestures dataset.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12603 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A unified view on point cloud and event stream mod [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. STREAM encodes geometric information into the SSM parameters. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Point cloud processing pipeline inspired by PointMamba [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Hierarchical subsampling architectures with two stages [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Example of a Scan operating on four inputs. The left most column represents the input pairs [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Static in Frames, Dynamic in Events: Rethinking Features in Event Cameras as Motion Cues

    cs.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Harris eigenvalues and spatiotemporal density values from event cameras encode motion direction and, when added to an optical flow network, improve accuracy in data-scarce settings.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 55 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    A low power, fully event-based gesture recognition system

    Arnon Amir, Brian Taba, David Berg, Timothy Melano, Jef- frey McKinstry, Carmelo Di Nolfo, Tapan Nayak, Alexan- der Andreopoulos, Guillaume Garreau, Marcela Mendoza, Jeff Kusnitz, Michael Debole, Steve Esser, Tobi Delbruck, Myron Flickner, and Dharmendra Modha. A low power, fully event-based gesture recognition system. In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer ...

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Alexandre Bittar and Philip N. Garner. A surrogate gradient spiking baseline for speech command recognition. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 16, 2022. 8

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Prefix sums and their applications, 1990

    Guy E Blelloch. Prefix sums and their applications, 1990. 5, 2

    work page 1990

  4. [4]

    Qi Charles, Hao Su, Mo Kaichun, and Leonidas J

    R. Qi Charles, Hao Su, Mo Kaichun, and Leonidas J. Guibas. PointNet: Deep Learning on Point Sets for 3D Classification and Segmentation . In 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 77–85, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2017. IEEE Computer Society. 1, 2, 7

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Pointgpt: Auto-regressively generative pre- training from point clouds

    Guangyan Chen, Meiling Wang, Yi Yang, Kai Yu, Li Yuan, and Yufeng Yue. Pointgpt: Auto-regressively generative pre- training from point clouds. In Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, pages 29667–29679. Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2023. 1, 2, 5, 7

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Spikmamba: When snn meets mamba in event-based human action recognition, 2024

    Jiaqi Chen, Yan Yang, Shizhuo Deng, Da Teng, and Liyuan Pan. Spikmamba: When snn meets mamba in event-based human action recognition, 2024. 3, 7, 1

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    The heidelberg spiking data sets for the systematic evaluation of spiking neural networks

    Benjamin Cramer, Yannik Stradmann, Johannes Schemmel, and Friedemann Zenke. The heidelberg spiking data sets for the systematic evaluation of spiking neural networks. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 33 (7):2744–2757, 2022. 8, 9

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Runpei Dong, Zekun Qi, Linfeng Zhang, Junbo Zhang, Jian- jian Sun, Zheng Ge, Li Yi, and Kaisheng Ma. Autoencoders as cross-modal teachers: Can pretrained 2d image transform- ers help 3d representation learning? In The Eleventh Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 7

    work page 2023

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Mamba: Linear-time sequence mod- eling with selective state spaces, 2024

    Albert Gu and Tri Dao. Mamba: Linear-time sequence mod- eling with selective state spaces, 2024. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 1

    2024

  2. [10]

    Combining recurrent, convolutional, and continuous-time models with linear state space layers

    Albert Gu, Isys Johnson, Karan Goel, Khaled Saab, Tri Dao, Atri Rudra, and Christopher R ´e. Combining recurrent, convolutional, and continuous-time models with linear state space layers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34: Annual Conference on Neural Info...

    2021

  3. [11]

    Efficiently mod- eling long sequences with structured state spaces

    Albert Gu, Karan Goel, and Christopher Re. Efficiently mod- eling long sequences with structured state spaces. In Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations, 2022. 2, 4, 1

    2022

  4. [12]

    Martin, and Shi-Min Hu

    Meng-Hao Guo, Jun-Xiong Cai, Zheng-Ning Liu, Tai-Jiang Mu, Ralph R. Martin, and Shi-Min Hu. Pct: Point cloud transformer. Computational Visual Media , 7(2):187–199,

  5. [13]

    Deep learning for 3d point 9 clouds: A survey

    Yulan Guo, Hanyun Wang, Qingyong Hu, Hao Liu, Li Liu, and Mohammed Bennamoun. Deep learning for 3d point 9 clouds: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 43(12):4338–4364, 2021. 1

    2021

  6. [14]

    Learning delays in spiking neural net- works using dilated convolutions with learnable spacings

    Ilyass Hammouamri, Ismail Khalfaoui-Hassani, and Tim- oth´ee Masquelier. Learning delays in spiking neural net- works using dilated convolutions with learnable spacings. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Represen- tations, 2024. 8

    2024

  7. [15]

    At- tention discriminant sampling for point clouds

    Cheng-Yao Hong, Yu-Ying Chou, and Tyng-Luh Liu. At- tention discriminant sampling for point clouds. In 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 14383–14394, 2023. 7

    2023

  8. [16]

    JUWELS Cluster and Booster: Exascale Pathfinder with Modular Supercomputing Architecture at Juelich Supercomputing Centre

    J ¨ulich Supercomputing Centre. JUWELS Cluster and Booster: Exascale Pathfinder with Modular Supercomputing Architecture at Juelich Supercomputing Centre. Journal of large-scale research facilities, 7(A138), 2021. 9

    2021

  9. [17]

    SMPConv: Self- Moving Point Representations for Continuous Convolution

    Sanghyeon Kim and Eunbyung Park. SMPConv: Self- Moving Point Representations for Continuous Convolution. In 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), pages 10289–10299, 2023. ISSN: 2575-7075. 2

    2023

  10. [18]

    Shi, and Ryad B

    Xavier Lagorce, Garrick Orchard, Francesco Galluppi, Bertram E. Shi, and Ryad B. Benosman. Hots: A hierarchy of event-based time-surfaces for pattern recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 39(7):1346–1359, 2017. 3

    2017

  11. [19]

    Pointcnn: Convolution on x-transformed points

    Yangyan Li, Rui Bu, Mingchao Sun, Wei Wu, Xinhan Di, and Baoquan Chen. Pointcnn: Convolution on x-transformed points. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems. Curran Associates, Inc., 2018. 7

    2018

  12. [20]

    Pointmamba: A simple state space model for point cloud analysis

    Dingkang Liang, Xin Zhou, Wei Xu, Xingkui Zhu, Zhikang Zou, Xiaoqing Ye, Xiao Tan, and Xiang Bai. Pointmamba: A simple state space model for point cloud analysis. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1

    2024

  13. [21]

    A 128× 128 120 db 15 µs latency asynchronous temporal con- trast vision sensor

    Patrick Lichtsteiner, Christoph Posch, and Tobi Delbruck. A 128× 128 120 db 15 µs latency asynchronous temporal con- trast vision sensor. IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, 43 (2):566–576, 2008. 1

    2008

  14. [22]

    Lam, and Ngai Wong

    Chang Liu, Xiaojuan Qi, Edmund Y . Lam, and Ngai Wong. Fast classification and action recognition with event-based imaging. IEEE Access, 10:55638–55649, 2022. 7

    2022

  15. [23]

    Masked discrim- ination for self-supervised learning on point clouds

    Haotian Liu, Mu Cai, and Yong Jae Lee. Masked discrim- ination for self-supervised learning on point clouds. Pro- ceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), 2022. 7

    2022

  16. [24]

    Re- thinking network design and local geometry in point cloud: A simple residual MLP framework

    Xu Ma, Can Qin, Haoxuan You, Haoxi Ran, and Yun Fu. Re- thinking network design and local geometry in point cloud: A simple residual MLP framework. In International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, 2022. 7

    2022

  17. [25]

    V oxnet: A 3d con- volutional neural network for real-time object recognition

    Daniel Maturana and Sebastian Scherer. V oxnet: A 3d con- volutional neural network for real-time object recognition. In 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 922–928, 2015. 1

    2015

  18. [26]

    Masked autoencoders for point cloud self-supervised learning

    Yatian Pang, Wenxiao Wang, Francis EH Tay, Wei Liu, Yonghong Tian, and Li Yuan. Masked autoencoders for point cloud self-supervised learning. In Computer Vision–ECCV 2022: 17th European Conference, Tel Aviv, Israel, October 23–27, 2022, Proceedings, Part II, pages 604–621. Springer,

    2022

  19. [27]

    TENNs-PLEIADES: Build- ing Temporal Kernels with Orthogonal Polynomials, 2024

    Yan Ru Pei and Olivier Coenen. TENNs-PLEIADES: Build- ing Temporal Kernels with Orthogonal Polynomials, 2024. arXiv:2405.12179. 3, 7, 8

    2024

  20. [28]

    Learning to detect objects with a 1 megapixel event camera

    Etienne Perot, Pierre de Tournemire, Davide Nitti, Jonathan Masci, and Amos Sironi. Learning to detect objects with a 1 megapixel event camera. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 16639–16652. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020. 1, 3

    2020

  21. [29]

    Dgcnn: A convolutional neural network over large-scale labeled graphs

    Anh Viet Phan, Minh Le Nguyen, Yen Lam Hoang Nguyen, and Lam Thu Bui. Dgcnn: A convolutional neural network over large-scale labeled graphs. Neural Networks, 108:533– 543, 2018. 7

    2018

  22. [30]

    Hyena hierarchy: Towards larger con- volutional language models

    Michael Poli, Stefano Massaroli, Eric Nguyen, Daniel Y Fu, Tri Dao, Stephen Baccus, Yoshua Bengio, Stefano Ermon, and Christopher Re. Hyena hierarchy: Towards larger con- volutional language models. In Proceedings of the 40th In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, pag...

    2023

  23. [31]

    Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space

    Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, Li Yi, Hao Su, and Leonidas J Guibas. Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. In Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems. Curran Associates, Inc., 2017. 2, 7

    2017

  24. [32]

    Pointnext: revisiting pointnet++ with im- proved training and scaling strategies

    Guocheng Qian, Yuchen Li, Houwen Peng, Jinjie Mai, Hasan Abed Al Kader Hammoud, Mohamed Elhoseiny, and Bernard Ghanem. Pointnext: revisiting pointnet++ with im- proved training and scaling strategies. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Pr...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Language models are unsu- pervised multitask learners

    Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. Language models are unsu- pervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 2019. 6

    2019

  26. [34]

    Surface Repre- sentation for Point Clouds

    Haoxi Ran, Jun Liu, and Chengjie Wang. Surface Repre- sentation for Point Clouds . In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 18920–18930, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2022. IEEE Com- puter Society. 7

    2022

  27. [35]

    Ttpoint: A tensorized point cloud network for lightweight action recognition with event cam- eras

    Hongwei Ren, Yue Zhou, Haotian FU, Yulong Huang, Ren- jing Xu, and Bojun Cheng. Ttpoint: A tensorized point cloud network for lightweight action recognition with event cam- eras. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Confer- ence on Multimedia, page 8026–8034, New York,...

  28. [36]

    Rethinking efficient and effective point- based networks for event camera classification and regres- sion: Eventmamba, 2024

    Hongwei Ren, Yue Zhou, Jiadong Zhu, Haotian Fu, Yu- long Huang, Xiaopeng Lin, Yuetong Fang, Fei Ma, Hao Yu, and Bojun Cheng. Rethinking efficient and effective point- based networks for event camera classification and regres- sion: Eventmamba, 2024. 2, 3, 7, 1

    2024

  29. [37]

    Aegnn: Asynchronous event-based graph neural networks

    Simon Schaefer, Daniel Gehrig, and Davide Scaramuzza. Aegnn: Asynchronous event-based graph neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12371– 12381, 2022. 3, 7

    2022

  30. [38]

    Scalable 10 event-by-event processing of neuromorphic sensory signals with deep state-space models

    Mark Sch ¨one, Neeraj Mohan Sushma, Jingyue Zhuge, Chris- tian Mayr, Anand Subramoney, and David Kappel. Scalable 10 event-by-event processing of neuromorphic sensory signals with deep state-space models. In ACM/IEEE International Conference on Neuromorphic Systems. IEEE, 2024...

    2024

  31. [39]

    Eventnet: Asynchronous recursive event processing

    Yusuke Sekikawa, Kosuke Hara, and Hideo Saito. Eventnet: Asynchronous recursive event processing. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019. 3, 7

    2019

  32. [40]

    Smith, Andrew Warrington, and Scott Linder- man

    Jimmy T.H. Smith, Andrew Warrington, and Scott Linder- man. Simplified state space layers for sequence modeling. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, 2023. 3, 1, 2

    2023

  33. [41]

    S7: Selective and simplified state space layers for sequence modeling, 2024

    Taylan Soydan, Nikola Zubi ´c, Nico Messikommer, Sid- dhartha Mishra, and Davide Scaramuzza. S7: Selective and simplified state space layers for sequence modeling, 2024. 3, 7, 8

    2024

  34. [42]

    Efficient recur- rent architectures through activity sparsity and sparse back- propagation through time

    Anand Subramoney, Khaleelulla Khan Nazeer, Mark Sch¨one, Christian Mayr, and David Kappel. Efficient recur- rent architectures through activity sparsity and sparse back- propagation through time. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. 3

    2023

  35. [43]

    Revisiting point cloud classification: A new benchmark dataset and classifi- cation model on real-world data

    Mikaela Angelina Uy, Quang-Hieu Pham, Binh-Son Hua, Duc Thanh Nguyen, and Sai-Kit Yeung. Revisiting point cloud classification: A new benchmark dataset and classifi- cation model on real-world data. InInternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019. 2, 5, 6, 7

    2019

  36. [44]

    Octformer: Octree-based transformers for 3d point clouds

    Peng-Shuai Wang. Octformer: Octree-based transformers for 3d point clouds. ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4), 2023. 7

    2023

  37. [45]

    Space-time event clouds for gesture recognition: From rgb cameras to event cameras

    Qinyi Wang, Yexin Zhang, Junsong Yuan, and Yilong Lu. Space-time event clouds for gesture recognition: From rgb cameras to event cameras. In 2019 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , pages 1826– 1835, 2019. 2

    2019

  38. [46]

    Deep Parametric Contin- uous Convolutional Neural Networks

    Shenlong Wang, Simon Suo, Wei-Chiu Ma, Andrei Pokrovsky, and Raquel Urtasun. Deep Parametric Contin- uous Convolutional Neural Networks. In 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 2589–2597, 2018. ISSN: 2575-7075. 1, 2, 4

    2018

  39. [47]

    Speech commands: A dataset for limited- vocabulary speech recognition, 2018

    Pete Warden. Speech commands: A dataset for limited- vocabulary speech recognition, 2018. 8

    2018

  40. [48]

    PointConv: Deep Convolutional Networks on 3D Point Clouds

    Wenxuan Wu, Zhongang Qi, and Li Fuxin. PointConv: Deep Convolutional Networks on 3D Point Clouds. In 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 9613–9622, 2019. ISSN: 2575-7075. 1, 2, 4

    2019

  41. [49]

    PointConvFormer: Re- venge of the Point-based Convolution

    Wenxuan Wu, Li Fuxin, and Qi Shan. PointConvFormer: Re- venge of the Point-based Convolution. In 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 21802–21813, 2023. ISSN: 2575-7075. 2

    2023

  42. [50]

    3d shapenets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes

    Zhirong Wu, Shuran Song, Aditya Khosla, Fisher Yu, Lin- guang Zhang, Xiaoou Tang, and Jianxiong Xiao. 3d shapenets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2015. 1

    2015

  43. [51]

    3d shapenets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes

    Zhirong Wu, Shuran Song, Aditya Khosla, Fisher Yu, Lin- guang Zhang, Xiaoou Tang, and Jianxiong Xiao. 3d shapenets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes. In 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 1912–1920, 2015. 2, 6

    2015

  44. [52]

    Point-BERT: Pre-training 3D Point Cloud Transformers with Masked Point Modeling

    Xumin Yu, Lulu Tang, Yongming Rao, Tiejun Huang, Jie Zhou, and Jiwen Lu. Point-BERT: Pre-training 3D Point Cloud Transformers with Masked Point Modeling . In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), pages 19291–19300, Los Alami- tos, CA, US...

    2022

  45. [53]

    Cutmix: Regular- ization strategy to train strong classifiers with localizable fea- tures

    Sangdoo Yun, Dongyoon Han, Seong Joon Oh, Sanghyuk Chun, Junsuk Choe, and Youngjoon Yoo. Cutmix: Regular- ization strategy to train strong classifiers with localizable fea- tures. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Con- ference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2019. 7

    2019

  46. [54]

    Point-m2ae: multi-scale masked autoencoders for hierarchical point cloud pre-training

    Renrui Zhang, Ziyu Guo, Rongyao Fang, Bin Zhao, Dong Wang, Yu Qiao, Hongsheng Li, and Peng Gao. Point-m2ae: multi-scale masked autoencoders for hierarchical point cloud pre-training. In Proceedings of the 36th International Con- ference on Neural Information Processing Systems...

    2024

  47. [55]

    Point cloud mamba: Point cloud learning via state space model

    Tao Zhang, Xiangtai Li, Haobo Yuan, Shunping Ji, and Shuicheng Yan. Point cloud mamba: Point cloud learning via state space model. CoRR, abs/2403.00762, 2024. 3, 7, 1

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Ex- act: Language-guided conceptual reasoning and uncertainty estimation for event-based action recognition and more

    Jiazhou Zhou, Xu Zheng, Yuanhuiyi Lyu, and Lin Wang. Ex- act: Language-guided conceptual reasoning and uncertainty estimation for event-based action recognition and more. In 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), pages 18633–18643, 2024. 1, 3, 7

    2024

  49. [57]

    State Space Models for Event Cameras

    Nikola Zubic, Mathias Gehrig, and Davide Scaramuzza. State Space Models for Event Cameras . In 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5819–5828, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 2024. IEEE Computer Society. 1, 3 11 STREAM: A Universal State-Spa...

    2024

  50. [59]

    We restrict to the case of single-input single- output (SISO) state-space models with multi-dimensional state

    Derivations This section provides complete derivations of equations (6) and (7). We restrict to the case of single-input single- output (SISO) state-space models with multi-dimensional state. Multi-input multi-output (MIMO) formulations like S4 [11] or Mamba [9] can be obtaine...

  51. [60]

    Scan Linear time-varying systems such as the one given by equa- tion (26) resemble an associative operation, with well- known time complexity of O (log N ) [3]. The goal of this section is not to provide a proof, but to give the reader a clear idea of how irrgularly spaced seq...

  52. [2023]

    Association for Computing Machinery. 2

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.