MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413158043 · doi:10.1109/cvpr52734.2025.01102

Spectral Informed Mamba for Robust Point Cloud Processing

2025· article· en· W4413158043 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Bahri, Moslem Yazdanpanah, Mehrdad Noori, Sahar Dastani, Milad Cheraghalikhani, Gustavo A. Vargas Hakim, David Osowiechi, Farzad Beizaee, Ismail Ben Ayed, Christian Desrosiers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
Topic3D Shape Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsXerox (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCloud computingPoint cloudPoint (geometry)Artificial intelligenceMathematicsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

State Space Models (SSMs) have shown significant promise in Natural Language Processing (NLP) and, more recently, computer vision. This paper introduces a new methodology that leverages Mamba and Masked Autoencoder (MAE) networks for point-cloud data in both supervised and self-supervised learning. We propose three key contributions to enhance Mamba’s capability in processing complex point-cloud structures. First, we exploit the spectrum of a graph Laplacian to capture patch connectivity, defining an isometry-invariant traversal order that is robust to viewpoints and captures shape manifolds better than traditional 3D grid-based traversals. Second, we adapt segmentation via a recursive patch partitioning strategy informed by Laplacian spectral components, allowing finer integration and segment analysis. Third, we address token placement in MAE for Mamba by restoring tokens to their original positions, which preserves essential order and improves learning. Extensive experiments demonstrate the improvements that our approach brings over state-of-the-art baselines in classification, segmentation, and few-shot tasks. The implementation is available at: https://github.com/AliBahri94/SI-Mamba.git.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topic3D Shape Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207