MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410492284 · doi:10.1109/tpami.2025.3569596

Gamba: Marry Gaussian Splatting With Mamba for Single-View 3D Reconstruction

2025· article· en· W4410492284 on OpenAlexaff
Qiuhong Shen, Zike Wu, Xuanyu Yi, Pan Zhou, Hanwang Zhang, Shuicheng Yan, Xinchao Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topic3D Surveying and Cultural Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer visionGaussianComputer graphics (images)Iterative reconstructionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We tackle the challenge of efficiently reconstructing a 3D asset from a single image at millisecond speed. In this work, we introduce Gamba, an end-to-end 3D reconstruction model from a single-view image, emphasizing two main insights: (1) Efficient Backbone Design: introducing a Mamba-based GambaFormer network to model 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) reconstruction as sequential prediction with linear scalability of token length, thereby accommodating a substantial number of Gaussians; (2) Robust Gaussian Constraints: deriving radial mask constraints from multi-view masks to eliminate the need for warmup supervision of 3D point clouds in training. We trained Gamba on Objaverse and assessed it against existing optimization-based and feed-forward 3D reconstruction approaches on the GSO Dataset, among which Gamba is the only end-to-end trained single-view reconstruction model with 3DGS. Experimental results demonstrate its competitive generation capabilities both qualitatively and quantitatively and highlight its remarkable speed: Gamba completes reconstruction within 0.05 seconds on a single NVIDIA A100 GPU, which is about $1,000\times$ faster than optimization-based methods. Please see our project page at https://florinshen.github.io/gamba-project/.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine IntelligenceSame topic3D Surveying and Cultural HeritageFrench-language works237,207