Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Confident Splatting: Confidence-Based Compression of 3D Gaussian Splatting via Learnable Beta Distributions

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read After training, users can cut roughly half of a scene's 3D Gaussian splats and keep PSNR nearly unchanged.

desk verdict Neat idea with a useful test-time pruning knob, but the missing opacity-pruning baseline leaves the central 'better signal' claim untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.22973 v1 pith:CZQGIRGY submitted 2025-06-28 cs.GR cs.CV

AmirHossein Naghi Razlighi , Elaheh Badali Golezani , Shohreh Kasaei This is my paper
classification cs.GRcs.CV
keywords 3DGaussianSplattinglossycompressionconfidencescoresBetadistributionsplatpruningnovelviewsynthesisscenequalityassessmenttest-time
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 proposes a test-time compression method for 3D Gaussian Splatting scenes. Each splat is assigned a confidence score, modeled as the mean of a learnable Beta distribution, and this score is trained alongside the scene so that low-confidence splats are the ones that matter least for the rendered image. After training, a user picks a confidence threshold and simply deletes all splats below it, with no retraining; across most tested scenes the splat count drops by roughly half while PSNR changes only within a small tolerance. The paper also claims that the scene-wide average of these confidence scores correlates with reconstruction quality, so the same numbers serve as a quality metric.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a per-splat Beta distribution. For each splat $i$ the optimizer learns shape parameters $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_i$, and the splat's confidence is the distribution mean $c_i = \alpha_i/(\alpha_i + \beta_i)$. The Beta distribution matters because it carries a full belief shape, not just a point value: the sparsity loss pushes means down, the negative-entropy loss penalizes distributions peaked at 0 or 1, and the saliency loss uses hinge ranking on pairs of splats ordered by image-space gradient magnitude. Confidence is fed into rendering by scaling each splat's opacity, $o_{\text{eff}} = \sigma(o_{\text{orig}})\,c_i$, which couples the learned scores to the reconstruction loss. At test time the same $c_i$ values are thresholded to prune splats, which is what produces the reported compression.

What would settle it

Take a trained scene, rank splats by the paper's confidence scores and also by measured per-splat PSNR impact (remove each splat individually and record the PSNR change on held-out views). If pruning by confidence loses more PSNR than pruning by measured impact at the same retention rate, or if the rank correlation between confidence and measured impact is near zero on benchmark scenes, the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that confidence can be made into a learned, interpretable, per-splat property rather than a post-hoc heuristic. For each Gaussian the method fits a Beta distribution with parameters $\alpha_i$ and $\beta_i$, takes its mean $c_i = \alpha_i/(\alpha_i + \beta_i)$ as the splat's confidence, and optimizes those parameters with three reconstruction-aware regularizers: a sparsity loss that pushes average confidence down, a negative-entropy loss that discourages distributions peaked at 0 or 1, and a ranking-based saliency loss that forces splats with higher image-space gradient contributions to receive higher confidence. The confidence is multiplied into each splat's opacity during rasterization, so it participates in training. After training, thresholding on $c_i$ yields the compression knob. On the tested scenes the paper reports that halving the number of splats leaves PSNR essentially unchanged, and that applying the same procedure on top of the MCMC-GS variant gives comparable trade-offs; the average confidence over a scene is proposed as a quality metric.

Load-bearing premise

The saliency ranking loss assumes that a splat's contribution to image-space gradients of the reconstruction loss is a reliable measure of how much that splat matters for visual quality; if that proxy is inaccurate, the learned confidence ordering may be no better than simple opacity-based pruning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A trained scene can be compressed at deployment time by choosing a threshold, and the same scene can be served at multiple quality/size operating points without retraining.
  • Because the confidence parameters are added on top of an existing pipeline, the method should port to any splatting-based renderer that exposes per-splat opacity, rotation, scale, and color.
  • Pruning half the splats in most benchmark scenes keeps PSNR within a small tolerance, so storage and rasterization cost can be cut roughly in half before visible degradation.
  • The average confidence score (ACS) tracks scene quality, giving a reference-free way to compare reconstructions and to detect scenes with more floaters or artifacts.
  • The method introduces Splats-to-Quality Ratio (SQR) as a single number for comparing quality-compression trade-offs across methods and pruning ratios.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step the paper does not run is ablating the three losses: the ranking saliency loss is the only component using image-space gradients, so measuring PSNR after pruning when $L_{sal}$ is removed would isolate how much of the compression quality actually comes from the ranking signal rather than from the sparsity and entropy regularizers.
  • The same confidence scores could be reused for tasks the paper only names as future work: main-object extraction and floater removal. Those applications are plausible because thresholding in the provided visualizations progressively strips background and floaters, but the paper does not quantify their accuracy.
  • Because confidence is a continuous value, the method could support adaptive streaming or level-of-detail rendering, where distant or low-contribution splats are dropped first; this is an extension, not something the paper tests.
  • The ACS quality metric could be validated against human perceptual judgments or against no-reference image quality metrics on a larger set of scenes; the paper only compares a handful of scenes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes 'Confident Splatting', a post-training compression scheme for 3D Gaussian Splatting. For each splat, two learnable parameters define a Beta distribution, and the distribution mean is used as a per-splat confidence score. The confidence parameters are optimized jointly with the reconstruction loss through three regularizers: a sparsity loss, a negative-entropy loss, and a pairwise saliency ranking loss. During rasterization, the effective opacity is multiplied by the confidence score, and after training a user can prune splats below a chosen confidence threshold. The authors also propose the average confidence score (ACS) as a scene-quality metric and introduce a custom YouTube-derived dataset. Experiments are reported on MipNeRF-360, Tanks&Temples, and an Eiffel Tower scene, comparing against RadSplat and Mini-Splatting and demonstrating transferability to MCMC-GS.

Significance. If the central claims are correct, the method would be a simple, pipeline-agnostic test-time pruning mechanism with a user-controlled compression knob, and the released code and data would support further work on confidence-guided editing and uncertainty-aware rendering. The idea of modeling confidence with a Beta distribution and tying it to opacity is reasonable and worth investigating. However, the current evidence does not establish that the learned confidence ordering is better than plain opacity-based pruning, and several of the reported numbers weaken the headline claim that half the splats can be removed with negligible PSNR loss. The work is a plausible candidate for publication after a substantial comparative evaluation.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2–4.3, §5.4, Table 4] The central claim that the learned confidence is 'a better signal for identifying redundant or low-impact splats' (Section 5.2) is never tested against the simplest baselines. No comparison is made between pruning by confidence and pruning by opacity, by gradient magnitude, or by random order on the same trained model at identical retained-splat counts. This matters because Eq. (8) multiplies the original opacity by c_i, so confidence can be viewed as a learned rescaling of opacity; without such a baseline, the observed pruning success may be entirely consistent with opacity-based redundancy. I request a same-model ablation: rank splats by confidence, opacity, gradient magnitude, and random scores, prune each to the same retained counts, and report PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS. In addition, ablating L_sparse, L_ent, and L_sal separately is necessary to show that the ranking loss in Eq. (7) is what improves the ordering; as written, L_sparse directly minimizes average confidence and already tilts the learned scores toward 'low-confidence means prunable' by construction.
  2. [§5.2, Table 4] The headline statement that 'in most scenes, number of splats drops to half ... while PSNR does not change or changes with a really small tolerance' is contradicted by the paper's own numbers. In Table 4, Truck Ours@Base3DGS@~33% retains about one third of the splats but PSNR drops from 25.208 to 24.174 (−1.03 dB); Train @~39% drops from 21.797 to 20.277 (−1.52 dB); Treehill @~47% drops from 22.534 to 21.556 (−0.98 dB). At 50% retention, RadSplat achieves 25.419 PSNR on Truck and 22.488 on Treehill, so the proposed method is worse than the training-time baseline on these scenes at comparable or better sizes. The compression-fidelity claim should be restated per scene at a consistent retention level, with repeated-run variance, rather than as a global 'most scenes' assertion.
  3. [§5.5, Table 2] The transferability experiment to MCMC-GS only reports pruning 5% and 10% of the splats (PSNR@95% and PSNR@90%), not the roughly 50% compression advertised elsewhere. Showing near-identical PSNR when removing 5% of splats does not demonstrate that the method transfers at practically useful compression ratios. The authors should run the same threshold sweep on MCMC-GS, or explicitly limit the transferability conclusion to small pruning rates.
  4. [§5.6, Table 3] The proposed scene-quality metric ACS is asserted to correlate with quality, but the confidence values are trained with L_sparse, which actively minimizes their mean, and the comparison across 3DGS and MCMC-GS conflates pipeline differences in splat count and initialization. No correlation coefficient, error bars, or significance test is reported for the eight scenes. As a stated contribution, this claim should be either supported by a scatter plot of ACS against PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS across matched scenes, or explicitly softened to an anecdotal observation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] Figure 1 contains a typo: 'proposded' should be 'proposed'.
  2. [§4.1, Eq. (2)] Equation (2) writes an integral from −∞ to ∞ over a Beta density whose support is [0,1]; the limits should be 0 and 1.
  3. [Table 3] Table 3 lists LPIPS@Orig% = 0.7221 for Eiffel Tower Ours@MCMC-GS, which is inconsistent with 0.072 reported in Table 4; this appears to be a decimal typo and should be corrected.
  4. [§5.4, Eq. (9)] The text says SQR 'should be worse if the quality is low (0 at its lowest)', but the formula approaches 1/(1+0)=1 as PSNR tends to 0, not 0; the sentence and the formula need to be aligned.
  5. [Supplementary §10] The supplementary Gumbel-noise experiments in Eqs. (11) and (12) use α̂ and β̂ without defining them relative to the α and β parameters in the main text.
  6. [§5.1] The hyperparameters λ1, λ2, λ3, P, the ranking margin, and the SQR scale are not reported; without these values the experiments are not reproducible.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The headline pruning result is largely by construction: Eq. 8 multiplies opacity by confidence, Eq. 7 trains confidence to match gradient saliency, and Eq. 10 reuses Eq. 5 as a quality metric, so the main 'predictions' reduce to the training objectives.

  1. self definitional [Section 4.3, Eq. (8); Section 5.2.]
    "oeffective_i = σ(ooriginal_i ).ci (8) ... In this way, each splat’s opacity is modulated by its current confidence score before rasterization and thus, the confidence score is directly integrated into the rendering process."

    Because Eq. (8) multiplies each splat's opacity by its confidence before alpha compositing, a splat with confidence c contributes at most c times its original opacity to every pixel. Pruning splats below a small threshold therefore removes splats whose rendered contribution is bounded by that threshold, so the observation that PSNR barely changes is a direct consequence of the definition, not an empirical discovery about the learned Beta scores. The later statement that confidence 'provides a better signal' for identifying redundant splats restates this definitional opacity modulation rather than testing confidence against opacity-based pruning on the same model.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.2, Eq. (7); Section 5.2.]
    "Saliency ranking loss is proposed. ... Our ranking-based saliency loss ensures that splats with higher contribution to gradients are more confident in comparison with splats with lower contributions"

    The confidence score is explicitly optimized by Eq. (7) so that high-gradient splats receive higher confidence. Consequently, the paper's claim in Section 5.2 that 'confidence scores provide a better signal for identifying redundant or low-impact splats' is the training target itself, not an independent finding. The predictive content reduces to the assumed validity of image-space gradients as an importance proxy; no comparison to pruning by opacity or by raw gradient magnitude is provided, so the 'better signal' claim is untested and the ranking result is forced by the loss.

1 more flagged steps
  1. self definitional [Section 5.6, Eq. (10); Section 4.2, Eq. (5).]
    "Lsparse = 1 N NX i=1 ci (5) ... ACS = 1 N NX i=1 ci (10) ... scenes with fewer floaters/artifacts tend to exhibit higher mean confidence."

    The proposed Average Confidence Score in Eq. (10) is exactly the L_sparse regularizer in Eq. (5), which the training process actively minimizes. Reporting ACS as a scene-quality metric therefore reports the value of a training objective that was pushed down during optimization, not an independent quality measurement. The cross-scene and cross-pipeline ACS comparisons in Table 3 are confounded by different base methods, splat counts, and optimization dynamics, so the correlation with quality is self-defined by the training procedure.

full rationale

The paper contains three structural reductions that make the headline results partly circular. First, Eq. (8) defines effective opacity as σ(o_original)·c, so low-confidence splats have near-zero rendering contribution by definition; pruning them is thus guaranteed to have little effect on PSNR, independently of any empirical merit of the Beta-distribution confidence. Second, Eq. (7) explicitly trains confidence to rank splats by image-space gradient contribution, so the later statement that confidence 'provides a better signal' for identifying redundant splats is a restatement of the loss, not an evaluated prediction; the absence of an opacity-pruning baseline on the same model leaves the 'better signal' claim unsupported. Third, Eq. (10) defining ACS is identical to the L_sparse loss of Eq. (5), making the proposed quality metric the minimized training objective itself. These are genuine circular steps, so the score is 6. The paper is not fully circular: the Beta parameterization, the entropy regularizer, the transfer to MCMC-GS, and the held-out PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS measurements are independent content, and there is no reliance on self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The main external assumption is that image-space gradient saliency is a valid importance proxy, which is a correctness risk rather than a circularity; a direct comparison against opacity-based pruning would be needed to test it.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's main load-bearing assumptions are that image gradients indicate splat importance, and that the trained confidence scores remain valid importance estimates at test time. The Beta distribution itself is just a parameterization of a [0,1] mean with an entropy regularizer, not an independently evidenced entity.

free parameters (6)
  • lambda_1 (sparsity loss weight) = not reported
    Weight on L_sparse in Eq. 4; not specified in main text, needed to reproduce.
  • lambda_2 (entropy loss weight) = not reported
    Weight on L_ent in Eq. 4; not specified.
  • lambda_3 (saliency loss weight) = not reported
    Weight on L_sal in Eq. 4; not specified.
  • P (number of saliency pairs) = not reported
    P in Eq. 7 controls number of splat index pairs sampled; affects accuracy and speed.
  • margin in ranking loss = 1
    Margin constant in L_sal, appears in max(0, 1 + c_j - c_i); hand-chosen.
  • scale in SQR metric = varies (1e3 to 1e6)
    Arbitrary normalizer in Eq. 9; changes SQR values across scenes and makes comparisons awkward.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Beta distribution moment formulas (E[X] = alpha/(alpha+beta))
    Used in Eq. 2-3 without proof; standard.
  • domain assumption Differentiable rasterization of 3DGS and its parameters (position, covariance, opacity, SH)
    The method is built on a base 3DGS pipeline and assumes it can be trained with gradient flow, as in [10].
  • domain assumption Image-space gradients of the reconstruction loss rank splats by importance
    Core to the saliency loss (Eq. 7): splats with higher contribution to gradients should be more confident. Unstated and untested assumption.
  • domain assumption Pruning low-confidence splats after training preserves fidelity without retraining
    The whole compression claim (Section 4.4) depends on the confidence threshold being a valid post-hoc pruning signal.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Confident Splatting: Confidence-Based Compression of 3D Gaussian Splatting via Learnable Beta Distributions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CZQGIRGY

@misc{pith2026250622973,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Confident Splatting: Confidence-Based Compression of 3D Gaussian Splatting via Learnable Beta Distributions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CZQGIRGY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.22973}
}
read the original abstract

3D Gaussian Splatting enables high-quality real-time rendering but often produces millions of splats, resulting in excessive storage and computational overhead. We propose a novel lossy compression method based on learnable confidence scores modeled as Beta distributions. Each splat's confidence is optimized through reconstruction-aware losses, enabling pruning of low-confidence splats while preserving visual fidelity. The proposed approach is architecture-agnostic and can be applied to any Gaussian Splatting variant. In addition, the average confidence values serve as a new metric to assess the quality of the scene. Extensive experiments demonstrate favorable trade-offs between compression and fidelity compared to prior work. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/amirhossein-razlighi/Confident-Splatting

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.22973 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of proposded confidence-based Gaussian Splatting compression result, on the mip-nerf-360 garden [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of ”confident splatting” method. We extend any 3DGS pipeline by introducing learnable confidence parameters (α, β) for each splat, modeled by a Beta distribution. (a) The original pipeline remains unchanged, except for an added opacity modulation using confidence values. (b) Confidence parameters are optimized via entropy, sparsity, and saliency losses; sample distributions are shown. (c) Final renderings (… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Compression evaluation on different scenes, to show how confidence thresholding affects number of kept splats in the scene (and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Compression evaluation on the Garden scene. (a) metric trends. (b) rendering with and without pruning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Effect of confidence-based pruning on visual quality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Qualitative renderings at varying confidence thresholds. Our confidence-aware pruning preserves visual fidelity while discarding [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Some samples from each scene of our dataset. From left [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Visualizations among different scenes (horizontal axis) and different confidence thresholds (vertical axis). Note that these [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Compression in 3d gaussian splatting: A survey of methods, trends, and future directions

    Muhammad Salman Ali, Chaoning Zhang, Marco Cagnazzo, Giuseppe Valenzise, Enzo Tartaglione, and Sung-Ho Bae. Compression in 3d gaussian splatting: A survey of methods, trends, and future directions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19457, 2025. 2, 3

    arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P

    Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P. Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. 2022 IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 5460–5469, 2021. 6

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 5470–5479, 2022. 1

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Zip-nerf: Anti-aliased grid-based neural radiance fields

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Zip-nerf: Anti-aliased grid-based neural radiance fields. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , pages 19697–19705, 2023. 3

    2023

  5. [5]

    Fwd: Real- time novel view synthesis with forward warping and depth

    Ang Cao, Chris Rockwell, and Justin Johnson. Fwd: Real- time novel view synthesis with forward warping and depth. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 15713–15724, 2022. 2

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Generative novel view synthesis with 3d-aware diffusion models

    Eric R Chan, Koki Nagano, Matthew A Chan, Alexander W Bergman, Jeong Joon Park, Axel Levy, Miika Aittala, Shalini De Mello, Tero Karras, and Gordon Wetzstein. Generative novel view synthesis with 3d-aware diffusion models. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 4217–4229, 2023. 2

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    A survey on 3d gaussian splatting

    Guikun Chen and Wenguan Wang. A survey on 3d gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03890, 2024. 2, 3

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Mini-splatting: Repre- senting scenes with a constrained number of gaussians

    Guangchi Fang and Bing Wang. Mini-splatting: Repre- senting scenes with a constrained number of gaussians. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 165–181. Springer, 2024. 3, 2

    work page 2024

Show all 30 references
  1. [9]

    Ea- gles: Efficient accelerated 3d gaussians with lightweight en- codings

    Sharath Girish, Kamal Gupta, and Abhinav Shrivastava. Ea- gles: Efficient accelerated 3d gaussians with lightweight en- codings. In European Conference on Computer Vision, pages 54–71. Springer, 2024. 2, 3

    2024

  2. [10]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4):139–1,

  3. [11]

    3d gaussian splat- ting as markov chain monte carlo

    Shakiba Kheradmand, Daniel Rebain, Gopal Sharma, Wei- wei Sun, Yang-Che Tseng, Hossam Isack, Abhishek Kar, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Kwang Moo Yi. 3d gaussian splat- ting as markov chain monte carlo. Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems, 37:80965–80986, 2024. 6, 7, 8, 2

    2024

  4. [12]

    Generalizable novel-view synthesis using a stereo camera

    Haechan Lee, Wonjoon Jin, Seung-Hwan Baek, and Sunghyun Cho. Generalizable novel-view synthesis using a stereo camera. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pages 4939– 4948, 2024. 2

    2024

  5. [13]

    Compression of 3d gaussian splatting with optimized feature planes and standard video codecs

    Soonbin Lee, Fangwen Shu, Yago Sanchez, Thomas Schierl, and Cornelius Hellge. Compression of 3d gaussian splatting with optimized feature planes and standard video codecs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.03399, 2025. 2, 3

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Maskgaussian: Adaptive 3d gaussian representation from probabilistic masks

    Yifei Liu, Zhihang Zhong, Yifan Zhan, Sheng Xu, and Xiao Sun. Maskgaussian: Adaptive 3d gaussian representation from probabilistic masks. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 681–690,

  7. [15]

    Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. Communications of the ACM, 65(1):99–106, 2021. 1, 2

    2021

  8. [16]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- tiresolution hash encoding

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexan- der Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with a mul- tiresolution hash encoding. ACM transactions on graphics (TOG), 41(4):1–15, 2022. 1

    2022

  9. [17]

    Differentiable volumetric rendering: Learn- ing implicit 3d representations without 3d supervision

    Michael Niemeyer, Lars Mescheder, Michael Oechsle, and Andreas Geiger. Differentiable volumetric rendering: Learn- ing implicit 3d representations without 3d supervision. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vi- sion and pattern recognition, pages 3504–3515, 2020. 1

    2020

  10. [18]

    Radsplat: Radiance field-informed gaussian splat- ting for robust real-time rendering with 900+ fps

    Michael Niemeyer, Fabian Manhardt, Marie-Julie Rakoto- saona, Michael Oechsle, Daniel Duckworth, Rama Gosula, Keisuke Tateno, John Bates, Dominik Kaeser, and Federico Tombari. Radsplat: Radiance field-informed gaussian splat- ting for robust real-time rendering with 900+ fps. ...

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    A survey on deep generative 3d-aware image synthesis

    Weihao Xia and Jing-Hao Xue. A survey on deep generative 3d-aware image synthesis. ACM Computing Surveys, 56(4): 1–34, 2023. 2

    2023

  12. [20]

    Bakedsdf: Meshing neural sdfs for real- time view synthesis

    Lior Yariv, Peter Hedman, Christian Reiser, Dor Verbin, Pratul P Srinivasan, Richard Szeliski, Jonathan T Barron, and Ben Mildenhall. Bakedsdf: Meshing neural sdfs for real- time view synthesis. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings, pages 1–9, 2023. 3

    2023

  13. [21]

    Lp-3dgs: Learning to prune 3d gaussian splatting

    Zhaoliang Zhang, Tianchen Song, Yongjae Lee, Li Yang, Cheng Peng, Rama Chellappa, and Deliang Fan. Lp-3dgs: Learning to prune 3d gaussian splatting. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.18784, 2024. 3, 2 10 Confident Splatting: Confidence-Based Compression of 3D Gaussian Splatting via Le...

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    From these videos, high-quality frames are extracted at regular inter- vals and Structure-from-Motion (SFM) is performed to re- construct sparse 3D point clouds

    YouTube Gathered Dataset Public videos from YouTube are gathered depicting well- known landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower. From these videos, high-quality frames are extracted at regular inter- vals and Structure-from-Motion (SFM) is performed to re- construct sparse 3D point...

  15. [23]

    It does not contain any serious distractors, but learning its surfaces and tex- ture is hard since they are almost identical walls covered with soil and some historical carvings

    Perspolis Scene: Consists of 114 images of a part of Takht-e-jamshid monument in Iran. It does not contain any serious distractors, but learning its surfaces and tex- ture is hard since they are almost identical walls covered with soil and some historical carvings

  16. [24]

    This scene is one of the hardest scenes to recon- struct among in-the-wild scenes, since it has many dis- tractors (people moving around in front of of the Eiffel Tower)

    Eiffel Tower Scene: Consists of 1108 images from Efiel Tower. This scene is one of the hardest scenes to recon- struct among in-the-wild scenes, since it has many dis- tractors (people moving around in front of of the Eiffel Tower). Also, it is a large scale scene (containing ...

  17. [25]

    This scene also contains a lot of distractors like people, telephone booth, and buses moving around

    Big Ben Scene : Consists of 213 images from the Big Ben landmark in London. This scene also contains a lot of distractors like people, telephone booth, and buses moving around. It starts from a distant view of the Big Ben, and goes toward it in a non-straight path

  18. [26]

    This scene contains people moving around (as distractors) in front of the main structure

    Louvre Museum Scene: Consists of 95 images from the outside view of the building of Louvre Museum. This scene contains people moving around (as distractors) in front of the main structure. Also, the glass texture of the main structure alongside light reflections and refraction...

  19. [27]

    Main object extraction One of the usages of proposed method that can be studied further (in a separate work) is extracting the main object of the scene. Our results on various scenes show that when the confidence level is increased high enough, we get to a point that many of t...

  20. [28]

    This line of work is a famous problem in novel view synthesis and is being studied for a long time

    Floaters removal Another visionary for building on top of our pipeline is floater removal. This line of work is a famous problem in novel view synthesis and is being studied for a long time. Although the main aspect of our work is not improving the scene quality, it can be use...

  21. [29]

    One of the most recent proposals in this area is LP-3DGS[21] paper which uses Gumbel Noise in a multiplicative way with its impor- tance score and then applying a sigmoid function

    Effect of adding noise One of the methods for improving importance score (confi- dence score) prediction (which is a value between 0 and 1) is to add some multiplicative noise values. One of the most recent proposals in this area is LP-3DGS[21] paper which uses Gumbel Noise in...

  22. [30]

    A more in-depth comparison In Table 4 you can see a more comprehensive comparison of our model (added on top of original 3D gaussian splat- ting [10] and also Gaussian Splatting MCMC [11]) along- side the original 3DGS and also other pruning methods like RadSplat [18] and Mini...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.