Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

3DGabSplat: 3D Gabor Splatting for Frequency-adaptive Radiance Field Rendering

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that replacing 3D Gaussian kernels with 3D Gabor filter banks raises novel-view PSNR by up to 1.35 dB while cutting primitive count and memory.

desk verdict Novel and plausible 3D Gabor extension of 3DGS, but the submission is incomplete: no experiments are present, and the supplementary derivation omits a z-integration frequency shift that the rasterizer would need to handle. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05343 v1 pith:2C7DU5BJ submitted 2025-08-07 cs.CV

Junyu Zhou , Yuyang Huang , Wenrui Dai , Junni Zou , Ziyang Zheng , Nuowen Kan , Chenglin Li , Hongkai Xiong This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DGaussianSplattingGaborfilterkernelsnovelviewsynthesisradiancefieldrenderingfrequency-adaptiveoptimizationreal-timedifferentiablerasterization
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 proposes 3DGabSplat, a variant of 3D Gaussian Splatting in which each primitive is a 3D Gabor filter bank—a Gaussian envelope modulated by several cosine waves at different 3D directions and frequencies—rather than a single low-pass Gaussian. It argues that one such primitive can encode high-frequency texture that 3DGS needs many redundant Gaussians to approximate, and it shows how to project these oscillatory kernels to 2D so real-time rendering is preserved. If the claim is right, novel-view synthesis becomes better and cheaper at the same time: higher fidelity, fewer primitives, and lower memory. The concrete promise is an up to 1.35 dB PSNR gain over 3DGS with simultaneously reduced primitive count and memory consumption.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 3D Gabor kernel above, grouped into a per-primitive filter bank: one Gaussian (frequency zero) plus $K$ Gabor kernels with distinct frequency vectors $\mathbf{f}_k$ and scalar weights. The argument rides on the projection identity $\mathbf{f}_{\mathrm{proj}}^\top = \mathbf{f}^\top(JW)^{-1}$: the directional frequency of a 3D kernel transforms under the same affine map that transports the Gaussian covariance, so the high-frequency structure is not averaged away during splatting. The second piece is the z-axis integration of a Gaussian envelope times a cosine, which reduces the 3D bank to a sum of 2D anisotropic Gaussian-windowed sinusoids; that sum is what the r

What would settle it

Render a synthetic checkerboard or sinusoidal grating with known frequency from a range of distances and incidence angles using 3DGabSplat and 3DGS, and measure PSNR as the affine projection error grows. If the gap narrows to zero, or if the rendered texture shows phase scrambling relative to the expected projected frequency $(JW)^{-\top}\mathbf{f}$, the claimed benefit is not real.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Each scene primitive is no longer a single Gaussian; it is a filter bank. A 3D Gabor kernel is $G(\mathbf{x}) = \exp\left(-\frac{1}{2}(\mathbf{x}-\boldsymbol{\mu})^\top \Sigma^{-1}(\mathbf{x}-\boldsymbol{\mu})\right)\cos(2\pi \mathbf{f}^\top(\mathbf{x}-\boldsymbol{\mu}))$, a Gaussian envelope modulated by a cosine with its own 3D frequency vector $\mathbf{f}$ and weight. The primitive sums this bank with a plain Gaussian (the $\mathbf{f}=0$ limit), so one splat carries low-frequency shape and several directional high-frequency textures. For rendering, the paper shows that the standard 3DGS projection step—world-to-camera $W$ followed by the affine Jacobian $J$—also projects the frequency: $\

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the perspective camera transformation can be treated as a single affine map across the whole footprint of each 3D Gabor kernel; when the cosine oscillates quickly, even a small error in that map displaces the very frequency the kernel was meant to paint.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single 3DGabSplat primitive can carry a band of frequencies, so fine textures that force 3DGS to stack many overlapping Gaussians can be represented by fewer primitives; hence quality, memory, and training cost improve together.
  • The kernel is plug-and-play with the existing 3DGS pipeline: only the primitive definition, projection, and rasterizer change, so downstream 3DGS systems can adopt it without redesign.
  • Because setting all $\mathbf{f}_k = 0$ recovers a Gaussian, 3DGS is a special case of 3DGabSplat; a single fixed-direction Gabor likewise recovers 2D Gabor splatting, so the method strictly generalizes both.
  • Real-time rendering survives the added frequency channels: the custom CUDA rasterizer alpha-blends the projected Gabor bank in a single pass.
  • The frequency-adaptive optimizer automatically allocates high-frequency kernels to texture-rich regions, making bandwidth assignment part of training rather than a manual choice.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because each primitive carries explicit frequency vectors, a natural extension the paper does not state is analytic level-of-detail: given a pixel footprint, drop or damp Gabor kernels whose projected frequency exceeds the Nyquist limit, yielding principled anti-aliasing.
  • The affine frequency projection is likely to be the weak point in near-field or grazing-angle views; a synthetic stress test with known sinusoidal textures at varying depth and obliqueness could show whether the 1.35 dB gain persists or collapses exactly there.
  • The same filter-bank primitive could be dropped into 3DGS-based SLAM, dynamic scenes, or compression pipelines, where fewer primitives would directly reduce memory and per-frame cost; this is an editorial extension, not a paper claim.
  • Given the Gabor/wavelet lineage in neural fields, the explicit frequencies could be connected to perceptual quality: optimize the bank against frequency bands that matter for human perception, a testable variant not explored here.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes 3DGabSplat, which replaces the 3D Gaussian primitives of 3D Gaussian Splatting with 3D Gabor-based primitives. Each primitive is a weighted sum of a Gaussian kernel and multiple 3D Gabor kernels with distinct 3D frequency vectors, forming a filter bank intended to capture high-frequency and directional details. The authors derive the 3D-to-2D projection of these primitives using the same affine Jacobian approximation as 3DGS, state that the projected Gabor frequency transforms as f_proj^T = f^T (JW)^{-1}, and describe a CUDA rasterizer that integrates the projected 3D kernel along the z-axis. They also outline a frequency-adaptive optimization mechanism. The paper claims state-of-the-art novel view synthesis, including up to 1.35 dB PSNR gain over 3DGS with fewer primitives and lower memory consumption.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper would make a meaningful contribution: it replaces low-pass Gaussian kernels with band-pass Gabor primitives, a natural extension that could improve high-frequency detail while reducing primitive count. The formulation is not circular: Gabor frequencies and weights are fitted to training views and evaluated on test views. The projection of covariance and frequency in Supplementary Eqs. (16)-(17) is mathematically coherent. However, the central empirical claims are not verifiable in the reviewed text because no experimental section is included, and the z-integration derivation is incomplete in a way that matters for the correctness of the rasterizer. The idea is promising, but the manuscript as provided is not yet reproducible or fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supplementary A.2, Eq. (23)] Eq. (23) stops before the z-integration is completed. For a projected kernel exp(-1/2 x^T A x + i 2π f_proj^T x), the integral over z yields a 2D phase with frequency (f_x - (A02/A22)f_z, f_y - (A12/A22)f_z), not simply the xy part of f_proj. If the CUDA rasterizer uses only the xy components of the projected frequency from Eq. (17), then every tilted Gabor primitive with nonzero f_z is rendered at the wrong modulation frequency. This directly affects the paper's central claim of improved high-frequency reconstruction. The completed 2D Gabor formula must be stated explicitly, and the rasterizer's handling of the A02/A22 and A12/A22 shift must be documented or tested.
  2. [Experimental evaluation (missing in reviewed text)] The manuscript text provided for review contains no experimental section: no PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS tables, no primitive counts, no memory measurements, and no timing results. The abstract's claims of 'up to 1.35 dB PSNR gain over 3DGS' and 'reduced number of primitives and memory consumption' are therefore unsupported in this version. The empirical section must be present and should report per-scene results, baseline configurations, and standard deviations to support the stated gains.
  3. [Section 3, frequency-adaptive mechanism] The frequency-adaptive mechanism is described only at a high level: the paper states that frequencies and coefficients are dynamically adjusted during densification and optimization, but no equations, update rules, initialization strategy, or regularization are provided. Since the method's name and claimed benefit depend on this mechanism, the missing algorithmic detail prevents reproducibility and evaluation of whether the adaptivity is essential to the reported gains.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout supplementary] The supplementary text contains many rendering artifacts (e.g., '/u1D454', '/u1D6BA', 'parenlefttpA'), making the derivation hard to read. The final version should be typeset cleanly.
  2. [Supplementary A.1/A.2 notation] The symbol f is used both for the original 3D frequency and, after Eq. (17), for the projected frequency. Please use distinct notation (e.g., f and f_proj) in the z-integration derivation to avoid confusion.
  3. [Section 2.2 / related work] The comparison with 2D Gabor splatting [53] would benefit from a precise statement of its 'fixed direction' limitation: does it use a single 1D frequency modulation per kernel, and how does your 3D formulation degenerate to it? This would clarify the claimed novelty.
  4. [CUDA rasterizer] Please provide a pseudocode or algorithmic listing of the rasterizer, especially the step where the 3D Gabor frequency is converted to the 2D splat. This is needed to verify the z-integration issue raised above.
  5. [Abstract] The 'up to 1.35 dB PSNR gain' claim should specify over which scenes and under which configuration; reporting only the maximum can be misleading without the full distribution.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Gabor primitive projection and optimization pipeline are self-contained and evaluated on held-out views.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The 3D Gabor primitive is defined in Eq. (15) as a Gaussian envelope times a cos term, which is a mathematical construction not defined in terms of the target PSNR improvement or any fitted constant. The projection in Eqs. (16)-(17) follows the standard 3DGS local-affine approximation and transforms the Gabor frequency vector as f_proj^T = f^T (JW)^{-1}; this is a derived geometric transformation, not an input fitted to the reported novel-view quality. The 3D-to-2D integration in Supplementary A.2 is a standard Gaussian integral over z of an exponential-with-linear-phase integrand; even if the final closed form is omitted and the skeptical concern about the effective 2D frequency shift from f_z coupling is a legitimate correctness issue, it is not a circularity issue because the derivation does not presuppose the claimed rendering improvement. Frequencies, covariances, and coefficients are optimized against training photometric loss and evaluated on test views, which is standard supervised learning; no quantity being 'predicted' is a re-display of a fitted parameter. The paper cites prior Gabor/wavelet works (e.g., [7, 11, 48, 53]) for motivation, not as a load-bearing uniqueness theorem or as justification that the new primitive must work. There is no self-citation chain that forces the conclusion, no ansatz smuggled in via citation, and no renaming of a known empirical pattern as new organization. The only notable weaknesses—the omitted final z-integration formula and the unstated frequency-adaptive schedule—are completeness/verifiability concerns, not circular reduction.

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

The central claim rests on the 3D Gabor filter bank representation, whose frequencies and weights are fitted to data, on the affine camera approximation for the frequency projection, and on the standard 3DGS training pipeline. No independent physical entities are introduced. The filter bank size and frequency-adaptive schedule are unstated free parameters.

free parameters (4)
  • 3D frequency vector f_k = learned per primitive
    Each Gabor kernel in the filter bank has a learnable 3D frequency vector (Supplementary Eq. 15); it is optimized on multi-view training images and is central to the claim of frequency-adaptive detail capture.
  • Gabor kernel weight w_k = learned per primitive
    The primitive is a weighted sum of one Gaussian and K Gabor kernels; the weights are fitted by the photometric training loss (Section 3).
  • Number of Gabor kernels K per primitive = not reported in reviewed text
    The filter bank size is a hand-chosen or tuned hyperparameter; no ablation or default value is given in the available text.
  • Frequency-adaptive optimization hyperparameters = not reported
    The paper claims a frequency-adaptive mechanism but the provided text (Section 3 cuts off) does not specify thresholds, schedules, or regularization used to adjust frequencies.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Projective camera transformation is locally affine (Jacobian J).
    Supplementary Eq. (16) uses J and W to transform both covariance and frequency; if false, the projected Gabor kernel is not a valid 2D splat.
  • domain assumption Photometric loss on multi-view images is sufficient supervision.
    Training optimizes primitives against input views (Section 3.1); this is the standard NVS assumption and is load-bearing for the empirical claim.
  • domain assumption A finite weighted sum of Gaussian and Gabor kernels can represent the radiance field.
    The filter bank model posits that K Gabor kernels plus one Gaussian per primitive captures high-frequency detail; no universal approximation proof is given.
  • standard math Gaussian integral identities.
    Supplementary Section A.2 integrates products of Gaussians and complex exponentials along z, relying on standard completing-the-square results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3DGabSplat: 3D Gabor Splatting for Frequency-adaptive Radiance Field Rendering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2C7DU5BJ

@misc{pith2026250805343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3DGabSplat: 3D Gabor Splatting for Frequency-adaptive Radiance Field Rendering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2C7DU5BJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05343}
}
read the original abstract

Recent prominence in 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has enabled real-time rendering while maintaining high-fidelity novel view synthesis. However, 3DGS resorts to the Gaussian function that is low-pass by nature and is restricted in representing high-frequency details in 3D scenes. Moreover, it causes redundant primitives with degraded training and rendering efficiency and excessive memory overhead. To overcome these limitations, we propose 3D Gabor Splatting (3DGabSplat) that leverages a novel 3D Gabor-based primitive with multiple directional 3D frequency responses for radiance field representation supervised by multi-view images. The proposed 3D Gabor-based primitive forms a filter bank incorporating multiple 3D Gabor kernels at different frequencies to enhance flexibility and efficiency in capturing fine 3D details. Furthermore, to achieve novel view rendering, an efficient CUDA-based rasterizer is developed to project the multiple directional 3D frequency components characterized by 3D Gabor-based primitives onto the 2D image plane, and a frequency-adaptive mechanism is presented for adaptive joint optimization of primitives. 3DGabSplat is scalable to be a plug-and-play kernel for seamless integration into existing 3DGS paradigms to enhance both efficiency and quality of novel view synthesis. Extensive experiments demonstrate that 3DGabSplat outperforms 3DGS and its variants using alternative primitives, and achieves state-of-the-art rendering quality across both real-world and synthetic scenes. Remarkably, we achieve up to 1.35 dB PSNR gain over 3DGS with simultaneously reduced number of primitives and memory consumption.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Fourier Splatting: Generalized Fourier encoded primitives for scalable radiance fields

    cs.CV 2026-03 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    Planar Fourier-boundary surfels let a single radiance-field model render at continuous levels of detail by truncating coefficients, with STE gradients and HYDRA densification enabling stable training.

  2. Neural Harmonic Textures for High-Quality Primitive Based Neural Reconstruction

    cs.CV 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Neural Harmonic Textures add periodic feature interpolation and deferred neural decoding to primitive representations, achieving state-of-the-art real-time novel-view synthesis and bridging primitive and neural-field methods.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Kara-Ali Aliev, Artem Sevastopolsky, Maria Kolos, Dmitry Ulyanov, and Victor Lempitsky. 2020. Neural point-based graphics. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, Glasgow, UK, 696 712

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Matthew Tancik, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin-Brualla, and Pratul P Srinivasan. 2021. Mip-NeRF: A multiscale represen- tation for anti-aliasing neural radiance elds. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . IEEE, Montreal, QC, Canada, 5855 5864

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. 2022. Mip-NeRF 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance elds. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, New Orleans, LA, USA, 5470 5479

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

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

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Ang Cao and Justin Johnson. 2023. HexPlane: A fast representation for dynamic scenes. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 130 141

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Anpei Chen, Zexiang Xu, Andreas Geiger, Jingyi Yu, and Hao Su. 2022. TensoRF: Tensorial radiance elds. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, Tel Aviv, Israel, 333 350

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Zhang Chen, Zhong Li, Liangchen Song, Lele Chen, Jingyi Yu, Junsong Yuan, and Yi Xu. 2023. NeuRBF: A neural elds representation with adaptive radial basis functions. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. IEEE, Paris, France, 4182 4194

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Zilong Chen, Feng Wang, Yikai Wang, and Huaping Liu. 2024. Text-to-3D using Gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, Seattle, W A, USA, 21401 21412

    work page 2024

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    Zhiwen Fan, Kevin Wang, Kairun Wen, Zehao Zhu, Dejia Xu, Zhangyang Wang, et al . 2024. LightGaussian: Unbounded 3D Gaussian compression with 15 reduction and 200+ FPS. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 . Curran Associates, Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada, 140...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Guangchi Fang and Bing Wang. 2024. Mini-Splatting: Representing scenes with a constrained number of Gaussians. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, Milan, Italy, 165 181

    2024

  3. [11]

    Rizal Fathony, Anit Kumar Sahu, Devin Willmott, and J Zico Kolter. 2020. Mul- tiplicative lter networks. In The Eighth International Conference on Learning Representations. OpenReview.net, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 11 pages

    2020

  4. [12]

    Sara Fridovich-Keil, Giacomo Meanti, Frederik Rahbæk Warburg, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. 2023. K-planes: Explicit radiance elds in space, time, and appearance. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, Vancouver...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Sara Fridovich-Keil, Alex Yu, Matthew Tancik, Qinhong Chen, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. 2022. Plenoxels: Radiance elds without neural networks. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, New Orleans, LA, USA, 5501 5510

    2022

  6. [14]

    Michael Goesele, Noah Snavely, Brian Curless, Hugues Hoppe, and Steven M Seitz. 2007. Multi-view stereo for community photo collections. In 2007 IEEE 11th International Conference on Computer Vision . IEEE, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 1 8

    2007

  7. [15]

    Markus Gross and Hanspeter P ster. 2007. Point-Based Graphics . Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, USA

    2007

  8. [16]

    Antoine GuØdon and Vincent Lepetit. 2024. SuGaR: Surface-aligned Gaussian splatting for e cient 3D mesh reconstruction and high-quality mesh rendering. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, Seattle, W A, USA, 5354 5363

    2024

  9. [17]

    Abdullah Hamdi, Luke Melas-Kyriazi, Jinjie Mai, Guocheng Qian, Ruoshi Liu, Carl Vondrick, Bernard Ghanem, and Andrea Vedaldi. 2024. GES: Generalized exponential splatting for e cient radiance eld rendering. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and ...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Peter Hedman, Julien Philip, True Price, Jan-Michael Frahm, George Drettakis, and Gabriel Brostow. 2018. Deep blending for free-viewpoint image-based rendering. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG)37, 6, Article 257 (2018), 15 pages

    2018

  11. [19]

    Jan Held, Renaud Vandeghen, Abdullah Hamdi, Adrien Deliege, Anthony Cioppa, Silvio Giancola, Andrea Vedaldi, Bernard Ghanem, and Marc Van Droogenbroeck

  12. [20]

    Wenbo Hu, Yuling Wang, Lin Ma, Bangbang Yang, Lin Gao, Xiao Liu, and Yuewen Ma. 2023. Tri-MipRF: Tri-Mip representation for e cient anti-aliasing neural radiance elds. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. IEEE, Paris, France, 19774 19783

    2023

  13. [21]

    Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao. 2024. 2D Gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance elds. In SIGGRAPH ’24: ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers. ACM, Denver, CO, USA, Article 32, 11 pages

    2024

  14. [22]

    Yi-Hua Huang, Yang-Tian Sun, Ziyi Yang, Xiaoyang Lyu, Yan-Pei Cao, and Xiaojuan Qi. 2024. SC-GS: Sparse-controlled Gaussian splatting for editable dynamic scenes. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, Seattle, W A, US...

    2024

  15. [23]

    Ajay Jain, Matthew Tancik, and Pieter Abbeel. 2021. Putting NeRF on a Diet: Semantically consistent few-shot view synthesis. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . IEEE, Montreal, QC, Canada, 5885 5894

    2021

  16. [24]

    Nikhil Keetha, Jay Karhade, Krishna Murthy Jatavallabhula, Gengshan Yang, Sebastian Scherer, Deva Ramanan, and Jonathon Luiten. 2024. SplaTAM: Splat track & map 3D Gaussians for dense RGB-D SLAM. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Rec...

    2024

  17. [25]

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis

  18. [26]

    Shakiba Kheradmand, Daniel Rebain, Gopal Sharma, Weiwei Sun, Yang-Che Tseng, Hossam Isack, Abhishek Kar, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Kwang Moo Yi

  19. [27]

    Arno Knapitsch, Jaesik Park, Qian-Yi Zhou, and Vladlen Koltun. 2017. Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG) 36, 4, Article 78 (2017), 13 pages

    2017

  20. [28]

    Georgios Kopanas, Julien Philip, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis. 2021. Point-based neural rendering with per-view optimization. Computer Graphics Forum 40, 4 (2021), 29 43

    2021

  21. [29]

    Christoph Lassner and Michael Zollhofer. 2021. Pulsar: E cient sphere-based neural rendering. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, Nashville, TN, USA, 1440 1449

    2021

  22. [30]

    Joo Chan Lee, Daniel Rho, Xiangyu Sun, Jong Hwan Ko, and Eunbyung Park

  23. [31]

    Haolin Li, Jinyang Liu, Mario Sznaier, and Octavia Camps. 2025. 3D-HGS: 3D half- Gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the 2025 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, Nashville, TN, USA, 10996 11005

    2025

  24. [32]

    Zhihao Liang, Qi Zhang, Wenbo Hu, Lei Zhu, Ying Feng, and Kui Jia. 2024. Analytic-Splatting: Anti-aliased 3D Gaussian splatting via analytic integration. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, Milan, Italy, 281 297

    2024

  25. [33]

    Chenying Liu, Jun Li, Lin He, Antonio Plaza, Shutao Li, and Bo Li. 2020. Naive Gabor networks for hyperspectral image classi cation. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 32, 1 (2020), 376 390

    2020

  26. [34]

    In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Compact 3D Gaussian representation for radiance eld. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, Seattle, W A, USA, 21719 21728

    2024

  27. [35]

    Chongshan Lu, Fukun Yin, Xin Chen, Wen Liu, Tao Chen, Gang Yu, and Jiayuan Fan. 2023. A large-scale outdoor multi-modal dataset and benchmark for novel view synthesis and implicit scene reconstruction. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vi...

    2023

  28. [36]

    Tao Lu, Mulin Yu, Linning Xu, Yuanbo Xiangli, Limin Wang, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. 2024. Sca old-GS: Structured 3D Gaussians for view-adaptive rendering. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, Seattle, W A, USA, 20654 20664

    2024

  29. [37]

    Shangzhen Luan, Chen Chen, Baochang Zhang, Jungong Han, and Jianzhuang Liu. 2018. Gabor convolutional networks. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 27, 9 (2018), 4357 4366

    2018

  30. [38]

    Rong Liu, Dylan Sun, Meida Chen, Yue Wang, and Andrew Feng. 2025. De- formable Beta splatting. In SIGGRAPH Conference Papers ’25. ACM, Vancouver, BC, Canada, Article 101, 11 pages

    2025

  31. [39]

    Hidenobu Matsuki, Riku Murai, Paul HJ Kelly, and Andrew J Davison. 2024. Gaussian splatting SLAM. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, Seattle, W A, USA, 18039 18048

    2024

  32. [40]

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. 2020. NeRF: Representing scenes as neural radiance elds for view synthesis. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, Glasgow, UK, 405 421

    2020

  33. [41]

    Thomas Müller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexander Keller. 2022. In- stant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 41, 4, Article 102 (2022), 15 pages. Junyu Zhou et al

    2022

  34. [42]

    Jonathon Luiten, Georgios Kopanas, Bastian Leibe, and Deva Ramanan. 2024. Dynamic 3D Gaussians: Tracking by persistent dynamic view synthesis. In 2024 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV) . IEEE, Davos, Switzerland, 800 809

    2024

  35. [43]

    Michael Niemeyer, Fabian Manhardt, Marie-Julie Rakotosaona, Michael Oech- sle, Daniel Duckworth, Rama Gosula, Keisuke Tateno, John Bates, Dominik Kaeser, and Federico Tombari. 2025. RadSplat: Radiance eld-informed Gaussian splatting for robust real-time rendering with 900+ FPS...

    2025

  36. [44]

    Keunhong Park, Utkarsh Sinha, Jonathan T Barron, So en Bouaziz, Dan B Gold- man, Steven M Seitz, and Ricardo Martin-Brualla. 2021. Ner es: Deformable neural radiance elds. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE/CVF International Confer- ence on Computer Vision . IEEE, Montreal, QC, C...

    2021

  37. [45]

    Juan C PØrez, Motasem Alfarra, Guillaume Jeanneret, Adel Bibi, Ali Thabet, Bernard Ghanem, and Pablo ArbelÆez. 2020. Gabor layers enhance network robustness. In Proceedings of the 16th European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, Glasgow, UK, 450 466

    2020

  38. [46]

    Michael Niemeyer, Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Mehdi SM Sajjadi, An- dreas Geiger, and Noha Radwan. 2022. RegNeRF: Regularizing neural radiance elds for view synthesis from sparse inputs. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog...

    2022

  39. [47]

    Samuel Rota Bulò, Lorenzo Porzi, and Peter Kontschieder. 2024. Revising densi - cation in Gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, Milan, Italy, 347 362

    2024

  40. [48]

    Vishwanath Saragadam, Daniel LeJeune, Jasper Tan, Guha Balakrishnan, Ashok Veeraraghavan, and Richard G Baraniuk. 2023. WIRE: Wavelet implicit neural representations. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, Vancouver, B...

    2023

  41. [49]

    Johannes L Schonberger and Jan-Michael Frahm. 2016. Structure-from-motion revisited. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 4104 4113

    2016

  42. [50]

    Kerui Ren, Lihan Jiang, Tao Lu, Mulin Yu, Linning Xu, Zhangkai Ni, and Bo Dai

  43. [51]

    IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence Early Access (2025), 16 pages

    Octree-GS: Towards consistent real-time rendering with LOD-structured 3D Gaussians. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence Early Access (2025), 16 pages

    2025

  44. [52]

    Zhou Wang, Alan C Bovik, Hamid R Sheikh, and Eero P Simoncelli. 2004. Image quality assessment: From error visibility to structural similarity.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 13, 4 (2004), 600 612

    2004

  45. [53]

    Skylar Wurster, Ran Zhang, and Changxi Zheng. 2024. Gabor splatting for high- quality Gigapixel image representations. In SIGGRAPH ’24: ACM SIGGRAPH 2024 Posters. ACM, Denver, CO, USA, 1 2

    2024

  46. [54]

    Yuanbo Xiangli, Linning Xu, Xingang Pan, Nanxuan Zhao, Anyi Rao, Christian Theobalt, Bo Dai, and Dahua Lin. 2022. BungeeNeRF: Progressive neural radiance eld for extreme multi-scale scene rendering. In Proceedings of the 17th European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, ...

    2022

  47. [55]

    Cheng Sun, Min Sun, and Hwann-Tzong Chen. 2022. Direct voxel grid optimiza- tion: Super-fast convergence for radiance elds reconstruction. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, New Orleans, LA, USA, 5459 5469

    2022

  48. [56]

    Jiaxiang Tang, Jiawei Ren, Hang Zhou, Ziwei Liu, and Gang Zeng. 2024. Dream- Gaussian: Generative Gaussian splatting for e cient 3D content creation. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations . OpenReview.net, Vienna, Austria, 18 pages

    2024

  49. [57]

    Zhiwen Yan, Weng Fei Low, Yu Chen, and Gim Hee Lee. 2024. Multi-scale 3D Gaussian splatting for anti-aliased rendering. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, Seattle, W A, USA, 20923 20931

    2024

  50. [58]

    Jiawei Yang, Marco Pavone, and Yue Wang. 2023. FreeNeRF: Improving few- shot neural rendering with free frequency regularization. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 8254 8263

    2023

  51. [59]

    Ziyi Yang, Xinyu Gao, Wen Zhou, Shaohui Jiao, Yuqing Zhang, and Xiaogang Jin. 2024. Deformable 3D Gaussians for high- delity monocular dynamic scene reconstruction. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, Seattle, W A, ...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Chi Yan, Delin Qu, Dan Xu, Bin Zhao, Zhigang Wang, Dong Wang, and Xuelong Li. 2024. GS-SLAM: Dense visual SLAM with 3D Gaussian splatting. In Proceed- ings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, Seattle, W A, USA, 19595 19604

    2024

  53. [61]

    Yunzhi Yan, Haotong Lin, Chenxu Zhou, Weijie Wang, Haiyang Sun, Kun Zhan, Xianpeng Lang, Xiaowei Zhou, and Sida Peng. 2024. Street Gaussians: Modeling dynamic urban scenes with Gaussian splatting. InProceedings of the 18th European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, Mil...

    2024

  54. [62]

    Taoran Yi, Jiemin Fang, Junjie Wang, Guanjun Wu, Lingxi Xie, Xiaopeng Zhang, Wenyu Liu, Qi Tian, and Xinggang Wang. 2024. GaussianDreamer: Fast gen- eration from text to 3D Gaussians by bridging 2D and 3D di usion models. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Compu...

    2024

  55. [63]

    Wang Yifan, Felice Serena, Shihao Wu, Cengiz Öztireli, and Olga Sorkine- Hornung. 2019. Di erentiable surface splatting for point-based geometry pro- cessing. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 38, 6, Article 230 (2019), 14 pages

    2019

  56. [64]

    Mulin Yu, Tao Lu, Linning Xu, Lihan Jiang, Yuanbo Xiangli, and Bo Dai. 2024. GSDF: 3DGS meets SDF for improved rendering and reconstruction. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 . Curran Associates, Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada, 129507 129530

    2024

  57. [65]

    Zeyu Yang, Hongye Yang, Zijie Pan, and Li Zhang. 2024. Real-time Photorealistic Dynamic Scene Representation and Rendering with 4D Gaussian Splatting. InThe Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations . OpenReview.net, Vienna, Austria, 18 pages

    2024

  58. [66]

    Zongxin Ye, Wenyu Li, Sidun Liu, Peng Qiao, and Yong Dou. 2024. AbsGS: Recovering ne details in 3D Gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia . ACM, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 1053 1061

    2024

  59. [67]

    Jiahui Zhang, Fangneng Zhan, Muyu Xu, Shijian Lu, and Eric Xing. 2024. FreGS: 3D Gaussian splatting with progressive frequency regularization. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, Seattle, W A, USA, 21424 21433

    2024

  60. [68]

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang

  61. [69]

    Zheng Zhang, Wenbo Hu, Yixing Lao, Tong He, and Hengshuang Zhao. 2024. Pixel-GS: Density control with pixel-aware gradient for 3D Gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the 18th European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, Milan, Italy, 326 342

    2024

  62. [70]

    Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Binbin Huang, Torsten Sattler, and Andreas Geiger

  63. [71]

    In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Mip-Splatting: Alias-free 3D Gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . IEEE, Seattle, W A, USA, 19447 19456

    2024

  64. [72]

    Zehao Yu, Torsten Sattler, and Andreas Geiger. 2024. Gaussian opacity elds: E cient adaptive surface reconstruction in unbounded scenes. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 43, 6, Article 271 (2024), 13 pages

    2024

  65. [77]

    Hongyu Zhou, Jiahao Shao, Lu Xu, Dongfeng Bai, Weichao Qiu, Bingbing Liu, Yue Wang, Andreas Geiger, and Yiyi Liao. 2024. HUGS: Holistic urban 3D scene understanding via Gaussian splatting. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognitio...

    2024

  66. [78]

    Xiaoyu Zhou, Zhiwei Lin, Xiaojun Shan, Yongtao Wang, Deqing Sun, and Ming- Hsuan Yang. 2024. DrivingGaussian: Composite Gaussian splatting for surround- ing dynamic autonomous driving scenes. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni...

    2024

  67. [79]

    3DGabSplat: 3D Gabor Spla/t_ting for Frequency-adaptive Radiance Field Rendering

    Lanyun Zhu, Tianrun Chen, Jianxiong Yin, Simon See, and Jun Liu. 2023. Learning Gabor texture features for ne-grained recognition. In Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision . IEEE, Paris, France, 1621 1631. Supplementary Materials for “3DG...

    2023

  68. [2018]

    In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    The unreasonable e ectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 586 595

    2018

  69. [2023]

    ACM Trans- actions on Graphics (ToG) 42, 4, Article 139 (2023), 14 pages

    3D Gaussian splatting for real-time radiance eld rendering. ACM Trans- actions on Graphics (ToG) 42, 4, Article 139 (2023), 14 pages

    2023

  70. [2024]

    In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37

    3D Gaussian splatting as Markov Chain Monte Carlo. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 . Curran Associates, Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada, 80965 80986

  71. [2025]

    In Proceedings of the 2025 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

    3D Convex Splatting: Radiance Field Rendering with 3D Smooth Convexes. In Proceedings of the 2025 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. IEEE, Nashville, TN, USA, 21360 21369

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.