Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

MambaTron: Efficient Cross-Modal Point Cloud Enhancement using Aggregate Selective State Space Modeling

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read MambaTron, a hybrid Mamba–Transformer cell, reports state-of-the-art-level view-guided point cloud completion on ShapeNet-ViPC with 3.92M parameters, and its encoder transfers to point cloud classification and segmentation.

desk verdict MambaTron is a plausible architectural hybrid, but the SOTA claim is confounded by a two-stage pretraining mismatch and missing evaluation details. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.16384 v1 pith:PEKJYD5E submitted 2025-01-25 cs.CV cs.LGeess.IV

Sai Tarun Inaganti , Gennady Petrenko This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LGeess.IV
keywords pointcloudcompletionview-guidedstatespacemodelsMambacross-modalfusionblocktransformerclassificationShapeNet-ViPC
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

This paper claims that a hybrid cell mixing a bidirectional Mamba selective state-space layer with a small block-transformer can serve as the cross-modal bridge between an image and a partial point cloud, and that a network built from these cells performs view-guided point cloud completion at state-of-the-art accuracy while using fewer than half the parameters of the leading attention-based models. On the ShapeNet-ViPC benchmark, the proposed model reports an average Chamfer distance of 1.199×10⁻³ on known categories and 2.333×10⁻³ on novel categories, slightly better than EGIInet's 1.211 and 2.354, with F-scores also higher. The authors also show the same encoder transfers to unimodal point cloud classification and segmentation, reporting 90.17% accuracy on ScanObjectNN's PB_T50_RS split with 13.6M parameters. If these numbers hold, the paper's contribution is a concrete demonstration that state-space cross-attention can replace quadratic self/cross-attention in a multimodal 3D task without sacrificing accuracy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the MambaTron cell: a bidirectional Mamba layer (a selective state-space model that scans the whole token sequence in both directions and returns per-token context states) followed by a Block-Transformer layer that splits tokens into blocks of size W=4 and applies local attention in parallel, with geometric center position (GCP) tokens added to the context. This cell is used three times: as a shared intra-modal encoder for image patches and point-cloud groups, and as a cross-modal encoder that concatenates image tokens, point-cloud tokens, and special tokens so each modality's embeddings absorb the other's context. Supporting the point-cloud path is Adjacency-Preserving Reordering (APR), which applies a learnable affine transform (TNet) followed by XYZ sorting before the sequence enters Mamba, giving an infinite family of adjacency-preserving orders. The training objective combines Chamfer distance, a style loss on gram matrices, a projection loss, and a 2D reconstruction loss, staged as unimodal pretraining then cross-modal fine-tuning.

What would settle it

Run the released MambaTron model and EGIInet on the same ShapeNet-ViPC test split with identical batch sizes and preprocessing, across at least five random seeds, and compare mean and standard deviation of Chamfer distance and F-score; if EGIInet's mean is within one standard deviation of MambaTron's, or lower, the claim of outperformance is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a MambaTron cell—a fully bidirectional Mamba SSM layer followed by a block-transformer layer operating on blocks of size 4—is enough to build both intra-modal encoders and a cross-modal encoder for view-guided point cloud completion. The model, trained in two stages (unimodal masked autoencoding with projection loss, then cross-modal completion with style loss), takes an incomplete point cloud plus a reference image, fuses them, and decodes a completed point cloud. On the ShapeNet-ViPC benchmark the authors report averages of 1.199 Chamfer distance (×10⁻³) on known categories and 2.333 on novel categories, against EGIInet's 1.211 and 2.354, with corresponding F-scores of 0.839/0.761 versus 0.836/0.750. The whole completion network uses 3.92M parameters, compared with 9.03M for EGIInet and 9.57M for XMFnet. The paper further claims the same pretraining recipe transfers to classification and segmentation, outperforming PointMamba on ScanObjectNN (90.17% vs 89.31% on PB_T50_RS) and reaching 94.3% OA on ModelNet40 and 87.4% class mIoU on ShapeNetPart.

Load-bearing premise

The entire comparison against EGIInet and XMFnet assumes the published baseline numbers in Tables 1 and 2 were measured under comparable conditions to the authors' single run; no variance, seeds, or significance tests are reported, so the small Chamfer-distance margins could disappear under rerunning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported numbers hold, view-guided point cloud completion no longer requires quadratic attention: the MambaTron cell gives subquadratic complexity, so completion can scale to longer point sequences and denser point clouds.
  • The parameter count drops from 9.03M (EGIInet) and 9.57M (XMFnet) to 3.92M, which would make state-of-the-art-level completion feasible on devices with tight memory budgets.
  • The same pretrained encoder reaches 90.17% on ScanObjectNN PB_T50_RS, 94.3% OA on ModelNet40, and 87.4% class mIoU on ShapeNetPart, suggesting the cross-modal objective yields transferable 3D representations for classification and segmentation.
  • APR's learnable affine reordering appears to be worth 0.118 Chamfer distance on known categories and 0.278 on novel ones, indicating that token ordering is a first-order design choice for Mamba-based point cloud encoders.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit is applying the MambaTron cell to other paired-modality tasks, such as text-to-point generation or audio-guided scene completion, since the cell itself is modality-agnostic beyond tokenization.
  • The paper reports single-run comparisons against published baselines; multi-seed runs with confidence intervals on the same test split would be the natural next check to separate the 0.012–0.021 Chamfer-distance margin from run-to-run noise.
  • The APR ordering depends on a learnable TNet; one could test whether the learned transformations transfer across categories or datasets, or whether a fixed larger set of random affine orders would give the same gain without the extra parameters.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MambaTron, a hybrid cell that combines a bidirectional Mamba state-space layer with a block-transformer layer, and an Adjacency-Preserving Reordering (APR) scheme, and assembles these into a two-stage network for view-guided point cloud completion and unimodal point cloud pretraining. The authors report state-of-the-art or near-state-of-the-art results on ShapeNet-ViPC with only 3.92M parameters, competitive ScanObjectNN classification, and additional ModelNet40 and ShapeNetPart results in the supplement. They also provide ablations of the block-transformer, shared encoder, cross-modal encoder, losses, and APR.

Significance. If the reported numbers are reproducible under controlled conditions, the paper would make a useful empirical contribution: it is among the first to use a Mamba-based analogue of cross-attention in 3D vision, and the efficiency story (near-linear complexity, small parameter count) is attractive. The S4/Mamba mathematical background in Eqs. (1)-(3) is presented accurately, the APR idea is clearly motivated, and the supplementary ablations (APR components, loss variants) are a positive feature. However, the central performance and efficiency claims are currently not backed by a controlled comparison: the main tables lack variance, the pretraining protocol differs from the baselines, and the parameter counts are not reconcilable. The contribution is therefore significant conditional on additional verification.

major comments (5)
  1. [§5.1, Tables 1–2] The claimed advantage over EGIInet is confounded by an unequal pretraining protocol. The text states that MambaTron is first trained on complete ShapeNet55 point clouds with image projections at the unimodal stage and then fine-tuned on ShapeNet-ViPC, while the baseline numbers are taken from their published papers; there is no evidence that XMFnet or EGIInet received an equivalent pretraining stage. The average CD difference of 0.012 in the units of Table 1 and the F-score difference of 0.003 could plausibly be an effect of this extra pretraining rather than of the MambaTron architecture. The ablation in Table 4 does not include a no-pretraining condition, so this confound is untested. Please add at least one controlled condition: either train MambaTron from scratch on ShapeNet-ViPC and compare to the published baselines, or pretrain the baselines under the same ShapeNet55 protocol and report the comparison.
  2. [§5.1, Table 3] The headline parameter count is neither derivable nor internally consistent. Section 5.1 reports 3.92M parameters for MambaTron on ShapeNet-ViPC, but the same 'Ours' model on ScanObjectNN in Table 3 reports 13.6M parameters, with no explanation of what differs. The paper gives no layer count, channel widths, tokenizer dimensions, number of MambaTron cells, or decoder configuration, so a reader cannot verify either number. Please provide a full parameter breakdown for all models, state the architecture configuration for each task, and reconcile the 3.92M/13.6M discrepancy.
  3. [§5.1, Tables 1–2] All ShapeNet-ViPC numbers appear to be single runs. No standard deviations, seeds, or significance tests are reported for any metric. Given that the average improvement over EGIInet is 0.012 in the CD units of Table 1 and 0.003 in F-score, run-to-run variance could change the conclusion. Please report mean and standard deviation over at least three seeds for the proposed model and, ideally, for the baselines if rerun.
  4. [Figure 4, §5.2] The GPU-memory plot is not interpretable without a methodology. The figure compares MambaTron with Point-MAE and PointMamba as a function of input sequence length, but the manuscript does not state how memory was measured (peak vs. average), what hardware and batch size were used, which model configuration was tested, or how the baseline curves were obtained. Since the abstract and Section 5.2 advertise a 'fraction of the computation resources', this figure needs a complete measurement protocol or should be removed.
  5. [§4.2, §5.1] Training details needed for reproducibility are missing. The two-stage procedure in Section 4.2 and the experimental protocols in Section 5 do not report optimizer, learning rate schedule, batch size, number of epochs, token masking ratio, loss weights for the terms in Eqs. (8)-(9), or the stack depth of MambaTron cells. Without these, the reported results and ablations cannot be reproduced or checked. Please include a full hyperparameter table and a statement about code availability.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§1, §2.2, §2.3.2, §5.3] There are several typos: 'techninques' in the first paragraph of Section 1, 'theoritical' in Section 2.2, 'paramaters' in Section 2.3.2, and 'a seperate' in Section 5.3.
  2. [§5.2] The phrase 'We observe comparable results comparable to the SOTA methods' repeats 'comparable'; please rewrite the sentence.
  3. [Figure 4 caption] The caption reads 'GPU usage comparision'; this should be 'GPU usage comparison'.
  4. [Table 4] The header 'w/o CD (avg)' is confusing. The first row should be labeled as the full model, and the column header should read 'Average CD (known / novel)' or similar.
  5. [Supplementary Table 1] Please clarify the two '✓' columns in the APR ablation table: the text describes APR and the affine transform as separate components, but the column headers do not distinguish them.
  6. [§5.3] The bullet 'slowing down the training as the loss function takes longer to converge' is a sentence fragment and should be merged into the preceding sentence.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper is an empirical architecture study evaluated on external benchmarks, with no self-citation chain or definitional reduction.

full rationale

The paper makes no derivation that reduces to its own inputs. It proposes a Mamba-Transformer cell and reports benchmark results on ShapeNet-ViPC, ScanObjectNN, ModelNet40, and ShapeNetPart against published external baselines. There are no self-citations by the authors, and no uniqueness theorem or prior result by the same authors is invoked to force a design choice. The APR ordering is learned by training the model end-to-end with the Chamfer Distance loss, and the same metric is later used for evaluation; this is ordinary supervised learning on a train/test split rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The style, projection, and 2D losses are borrowed from prior work and are not defined in terms of the reported outcomes. The unimodal pretraining on ShapeNet55 before the ShapeNet-ViPC stage could make the comparison to baselines protocol-unfair if the baselines were not similarly pretrained, and the absence of variance reporting and the inconsistent parameter counts are reproducibility and validity concerns, but these are not circularity under the enumerated patterns. No load-bearing step is equivalent by construction to an input, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim is empirical and rests on benchmark data plus standard network components. No new physical entities are introduced. The main free parameters are architectural hyperparameters (window size, equal loss weights) and the learned APR transform; most training hyperparameters are unreported. The domain assumptions come from the view-guided completion setup and the quality metrics.

free parameters (4)
  • Window size W = 4
    Block-transformer window size set to 4; chosen by hand without ablations over W in the paper.
  • Loss weighting coefficients = 1 for each loss term
    Total losses L_uni and L_cross are unweighted sums (Eq. 8, 9); equal weighting is a design choice not justified.
  • APR affine transform (TNet) weights = learned
    The reordering transform is trained end-to-end; the paper does not analyze its learned values.
  • Training protocol hyperparameters = not reported
    Learning rate, batch size, epochs, and masking ratio are not stated, so the reported metrics depend on unstated choices.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math The SSM equations (1)-(3) correctly describe S4/Mamba discretization and state computation
    Used in Section 2.3.2; standard and correct background.
  • domain assumption The auxiliary image view contains enough information to recover missing point cloud geometry
    The view-guided completion task is defined under this assumption (Section 3.1), inherited from the ViPC benchmark.
  • domain assumption Chamfer distance and F-score on ShapeNet-ViPC are valid proxies for point cloud completion quality
    Evaluation uses these metrics (Section 5.1), following prior work.
  • ad hoc to paper Mamba's performance is strongly affected by token order, and APR preserves geometric adjacency
    This motivates APR (Section 3.3) and is supported only by the supplementary ablation (Table 1), not by external evidence.
  • ad hoc to paper The block-transformer window size of 4 is sufficient for local attention
    Window size 4 is fixed and not ablated in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MambaTron: Efficient Cross-Modal Point Cloud Enhancement using Aggregate Selective State Space Modeling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PEKJYD5E

@misc{pith2026250116384,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MambaTron: Efficient Cross-Modal Point Cloud Enhancement using Aggregate Selective State Space Modeling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PEKJYD5E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.16384}
}
read the original abstract

Point cloud enhancement is the process of generating a high-quality point cloud from an incomplete input. This is done by filling in the missing details from a reference like the ground truth via regression, for example. In addition to unimodal image and point cloud reconstruction, we focus on the task of view-guided point cloud completion, where we gather the missing information from an image, which represents a view of the point cloud and use it to generate the output point cloud. With the recent research efforts surrounding state-space models, originally in natural language processing and now in 2D and 3D vision, Mamba has shown promising results as an efficient alternative to the self-attention mechanism. However, there is limited research towards employing Mamba for cross-attention between the image and the input point cloud, which is crucial in multi-modal problems. In this paper, we introduce MambaTron, a Mamba-Transformer cell that serves as a building block for our network which is capable of unimodal and cross-modal reconstruction which includes view-guided point cloud completion.We explore the benefits of Mamba's long-sequence efficiency coupled with the Transformer's excellent analytical capabilities through MambaTron. This approach is one of the first attempts to implement a Mamba-based analogue of cross-attention, especially in computer vision. Our model demonstrates a degree of performance comparable to the current state-of-the-art techniques while using a fraction of the computation resources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.16384 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the fully-bidirectional MambaTron cell. Input embeddings block is at the bottom-left in addition to the output [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. An overview of our MambaTron-based model for the View-Guided Point Cloud Completion Task. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The Adjacency-Preserving Reordering (APR) scheme [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GPU usage comparision on point cloud analysis tasks by pretraining. We train our model with an AXform-based [46] decoder at the unimodal stage similar to the previous task on the ScanObjectNN [36] dataset, but this time with an 80-20 split. On the same 80% training dat…

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. A Survey on Mamba Architecture for Vision Applications

    cs.CV 2025-02 conditional novelty 1.0 of 10

    A survey of Mamba-based vision models that summarizes scanning mechanisms, key architectures, and benchmark results, contributing no new experimental findings.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Learning representations and generative models for 3 D point clouds

    Panos Achlioptas, Olga Diamanti, Ioannis Mitliagkas, and Leonidas Guibas. Learning representations and generative models for 3 D point clouds. In Jennifer Dy and Andreas Krause, editors, Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning , volume 80 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 40--49. PMLR, 10--15 Jul 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Cross-modal learning for image-guided point cloud shape completion

    Emanuele Aiello, Diego Valsesia, and Enrico Magli. Cross-modal learning for image-guided point cloud shape completion. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Chang, Thomas A

    Angel X. Chang, Thomas A. Funkhouser, Leonidas J. Guibas, Pat Hanrahan, Qi - Xing Huang, Zimo Li, Silvio Savarese, Manolis Savva, Shuran Song, Hao Su, Jianxiong Xiao, Li Yi, and Fisher Yu. Shapenet: An information-rich 3d model repository. CoRR , abs/1512.03012, 2015

    arXiv 2015

  4. [4]

    An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale, 2021

    Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale, 2021

    2021

  5. [5]

    Haoqiang Fan, Hao Su, and Leonidas J. Guibas. A point set generation network for 3d object reconstruction from a single image. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , July 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Block-state transformers, 2023

    Mahan Fathi, Jonathan Pilault, Orhan Firat, Christopher Pal, Pierre-Luc Bacon, and Ross Goroshin. Block-state transformers, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Comprehensive review of deep learning-based 3d point cloud completion processing and analysis, 2022

    Ben Fei, Weidong Yang, Wenming Chen, Zhijun Li, Yikang Li, Tao Ma, Xing Hu, and Lipeng Ma. Comprehensive review of deep learning-based 3d point cloud completion processing and analysis, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Hungry hungry hippos: Towards language modeling with state space models

    Daniel Y Fu, Tri Dao, Khaled Kamal Saab, Armin W Thomas, Atri Rudra, and Christopher Re. Hungry hungry hippos: Towards language modeling with state space models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023

    2023

Show all 54 references
  1. [9]

    Gatys, Alexander S

    Leon A. Gatys, Alexander S. Ecker, and Matthias Bethge. A neural algorithm of artistic style, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset

    Andreas Geiger, Philip Lenz, Christoph Stiller, and Raquel Urtasun. Vision meets robotics: The kitti dataset. International Journal of Robotics Research (IJRR) , 2013

    2013

  3. [11]

    Generative adversarial nets

    Ian Goodfellow, Jean Pouget-Abadie, Mehdi Mirza, Bing Xu, David Warde-Farley, Sherjil Ozair, Aaron Courville, and Yoshua Bengio. Generative adversarial nets. In Z. Ghahramani, M. Welling, C. Cortes, N. Lawrence, and K.Q. Weinberger, editors, Advances in Neural Information Proc...

    2014

  4. [12]

    Kim, Bryan Russell, and Mathieu Aubry

    Thibault Groueix, Matthew Fisher, Vladimir G. Kim, Bryan Russell, and Mathieu Aubry. AtlasNet: A Papier-M\^ach\'e Approach to Learning 3D Surface Generation . In Proceedings IEEE Conf. on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

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

    Albert Gu and Tri Dao. Mamba: Linear-time sequence modeling with selective state spaces, 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Hippo: Recurrent memory with optimal polynomial projections

    Albert Gu, Tri Dao, Stefano Ermon, Atri Rudra, and Christopher R\' e . Hippo: Recurrent memory with optimal polynomial projections. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 33, pages ...

    2020

  7. [15]

    Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces

    Albert Gu, Karan Goel, and Christopher Re. Efficiently modeling long sequences with structured state spaces. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    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 M. Ranzato, A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P.S. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan, editors,...

    2021

  9. [17]

    Joint-mae: 2d-3d joint masked autoencoders for 3d point cloud pre-training

    Ziyu Guo, Renrui Zhang, Longtian Qiu, Xianzhi Li, and Pheng-Ann Heng. Joint-mae: 2d-3d joint masked autoencoders for 3d point cloud pre-training. In Edith Elkind, editor, Proceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-23 , pag...

    2023

  10. [18]

    Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners

    Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Dollár, and Ross Girshick. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 15979--15988, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Denoising diffusion probabilistic models

    Jonathan Ho, Ajay Jain, and Pieter Abbeel. Denoising diffusion probabilistic models. In H. Larochelle, M. Ranzato, R. Hadsell, M.F. Balcan, and H. Lin, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume 33, pages 6840--6851. Curran Associates, Inc., 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Block transformer: Global-to-local language modeling for fast inference

    Namgyu Ho, Sangmin Bae, Taehyeon Kim, Hyunjik Jo, Yireun Kim, Tal Schuster, Adam Fisch, James Thorne, and Se-Young Yun. Block transformer: Global-to-local language modeling for fast inference. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.02657 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization

    Xun Huang and Serge Belongie. Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , Oct 2017

    2017

  14. [22]

    Block-recurrent transformers, 2022

    DeLesley Hutchins, Imanol Schlag, Yuhuai Wu, Ethan Dyer, and Behnam Neyshabur. Block-recurrent transformers, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    3dmambacomplete: Exploring structured state space model for point cloud completion, 2024

    Yixuan Li, Weidong Yang, and Ben Fei. 3dmambacomplete: Exploring structured state space model for point cloud completion, 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    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 Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Diffusion probabilistic models for 3d point cloud generation

    Shitong Luo and Wei Hu. Diffusion probabilistic models for 3d point cloud generation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 2837--2845, June 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Rethinking network design and local geometry in point cloud: A simple residual mlp framework, 2022

    Xu Ma, Can Qin, Haoxuan You, Haoxi Ran, and Yun Fu. Rethinking network design and local geometry in point cloud: A simple residual mlp framework, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    The illusion of state in state-space models

    William Merrill, Jackson Petty, and Ashish Sabharwal. The illusion of state in state-space models . In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

  20. [28]

    Yatian Pang, Wenxiao Wang, Francis E. H. 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 , page 604–621...

    2022

  21. [29]

    Mamba-360: Survey of state space models as transformer alternative for long sequence modelling: Methods, applications, and challenges, 2024

    Badri Narayana Patro and Vijay Srinivas Agneeswaran. Mamba-360: Survey of state space models as transformer alternative for long sequence modelling: Methods, applications, and challenges, 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    Charles Ruizhongtai Qi, Hao Su, Kaichun Mo, and Leonidas J. Guibas. Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation. CoRR , abs/1612.00593, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Qi, Li Yi, Hao Su, and Leonidas J

    Charles R. Qi, Li Yi, Hao Su, and Leonidas J. Guibas. Pointnet++: deep hierarchical feature learning on point sets in a metric space. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems , NIPS'17, page 5105–5114, Red Hook, NY, USA, 2017...

    2017

  24. [32]

    Contrast with reconstruct: Contrastive 3d representation learning guided by generative pretraining

    Zekun Qi, Runpei Dong, Guofan Fan, Zheng Ge, Xiangyu Zhang, Kaisheng Ma, and Li Yi. Contrast with reconstruct: Contrastive 3d representation learning guided by generative pretraining. In Andreas Krause, Emma Brunskill, Kyunghyun Cho, Barbara Engelhardt, Sivan Sabato, and Jonat...

    2023

  25. [33]

    Deep learning for 3d point cloud enhancement: A survey

    Siwen Quan, Junhao Yu, Ziming Nie, Muze Wang, Sijia Feng, Pei An, and Jiaqi Yang. Deep learning for 3d point cloud enhancement: A survey. 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Yossi Rubner, Carlo Tomasi, and Leonidas J. Guibas. The earth mover's distance as a metric for image retrieval. Int. J. Comput. Vision , 40(2):99–121, Nov. 2000

    2000

  27. [35]

    Tchapmi, Vineet Kosaraju, Hamid Rezatofighi, Ian Reid, and Silvio Savarese

    Lyne P. Tchapmi, Vineet Kosaraju, Hamid Rezatofighi, Ian Reid, and Silvio Savarese. Topnet: Structural point cloud decoder. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2019

    2019

  28. [36]

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

    Mikaela Angelina Uy, Quang-Hieu Pham, Binh-Son Hua, Thanh Nguyen, and Sai-Kit Yeung. Revisiting point cloud classification: A new benchmark dataset and classification model on real-world data. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , ...

    2019

  29. [37]

    Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N. Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. CoRR , abs/1706.03762, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Sarma, Michael M

    Yue Wang, Yongbin Sun, Ziwei Liu, Sanjay E. Sarma, Michael M. Bronstein, and Justin M. Solomon. Dynamic graph cnn for learning on point clouds. 38(5), Oct. 2019

    2019

  31. [39]

    Pointramba: A hybrid transformer-mamba framework for point cloud analysis, 2024

    Zicheng Wang, Zhenghao Chen, Yiming Wu, Zhen Zhao, Luping Zhou, and Dong Xu. Pointramba: A hybrid transformer-mamba framework for point cloud analysis, 2024

    2024

  32. [40]

    3d shapenets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes

    Zhirong Wu, Shuran Song, Aditya Khosla, Fisher Yu, Linguang 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) , June 2015

    2015

  33. [41]

    Snowflakenet: Point cloud completion by snowflake point deconvolution with skip-transformer

    Peng Xiang, Xin Wen, Yu-Shen Liu, Yan-Pei Cao, Pengfei Wan, Wen Zheng, and Zhizhong Han. Snowflakenet: Point cloud completion by snowflake point deconvolution with skip-transformer. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV) , pages 5499-...

    2021

  34. [42]

    Explicitly guided information interaction network for cross-modal point cloud completion, 2024

    Hang Xu, Chen Long, Wenxiao Zhang, Yuan Liu, Zhen Cao, Zhen Dong, and Bisheng Yang. Explicitly guided information interaction network for cross-modal point cloud completion, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Foldingnet: Point cloud auto-encoder via deep grid deformation

    Yaoqing Yang, Chen Feng, Yiru Shen, and Dong Tian. Foldingnet: Point cloud auto-encoder via deep grid deformation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2018

    2018

  36. [44]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    Pcn: Point completion network

    Wentao Yuan, Tejas Khot, David Held, Christoph Mertz, and Martial Hebert. Pcn: Point completion network. In 2018 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) , pages 728--737, 2018

    2018

  38. [46]

    Attention-based transformation from latent features to point clouds

    Kaiyi Zhang, Ximing Yang, Yuan Wu, and Cheng Jin. Attention-based transformation from latent features to point clouds. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , 36(3):3291--3299, Jun. 2022

    2022

  39. [47]

    Deep-learning-based point cloud completion methods: A review

    Kun Zhang, Ao Zhang, Xiaohong Wang, and Weisong Li. Deep-learning-based point cloud completion methods: A review. Graphical Models , 136:101233, 2024

    2024

  40. [48]

    Point cloud mamba: Point cloud learning via state space model, 2024

    Tao Zhang, Haobo Yuan, Lu Qi, Jiangning Zhang, Qianyu Zhou, Shunping Ji, Shuicheng Yan, and Xiangtai Li. Point cloud mamba: Point cloud learning via state space model, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    View-guided point cloud completion

    Xuancheng Zhang, Yutong Feng, Siqi Li, Changqing Zou, Hai Wan, Xibin Zhao, Yandong Guo, and Yue Gao. View-guided point cloud completion. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 15890--15899, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    A graph-cnn for 3d point cloud classification

    Yingxue Zhang and Michael Rabbat. A graph-cnn for 3d point cloud classification. In 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP) , pages 6279--6283, 2018

    2018

  43. [51]

    3dmambaipf: A state space model for iterative point cloud filtering via differentiable rendering, 2024

    Qingyuan Zhou, Weidong Yang, Ben Fei, Jingyi Xu, Rui Zhang, Keyi Liu, Yeqi Luo, and Ying He. 3dmambaipf: A state space model for iterative point cloud filtering via differentiable rendering, 2024

    2024

  44. [52]

    Vision mamba: Efficient visual representation learning with bidirectional state space model

    Lianghui Zhu, Bencheng Liao, Qian Zhang, Xinlong Wang, Wenyu Liu, and Xinggang Wang. Vision mamba: Efficient visual representation learning with bidirectional state space model. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning

  45. [53]

    Csdn: Cross-modal shape-transfer dual-refinement network for point cloud completion

    Zhe Zhu, Liangliang Nan, Haoran Xie, Honghua Chen, Jun Wang, Mingqiang Wei, and Jing Qin. Csdn: Cross-modal shape-transfer dual-refinement network for point cloud completion. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics , 30(7):3545--3563, 2024

    2024

  46. [54]

    Kim, Duygu Ceylan, I-Chao Shen, Mengyan Yan, Hao Su, Cewu Lu, Qixing Huang, Alla Sheffer, and Leonidas Guibas

    Li Yi, Vladimir G. Kim, Duygu Ceylan, I-Chao Shen, Mengyan Yan, Hao Su, Cewu Lu, Qixing Huang, Alla Sheffer, and Leonidas Guibas. A scalable active framework for region annotation in 3d shape collections. 35(6), Dec. 2016

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.