Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 63 references

Provable Pruning for Efficient 3D Gaussian Splatting via Coresets

T0 review · 3 major / 0 minor · reviewed 2026-07-12 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read A 3D Gaussian scene can be replaced by a much smaller weighted subset that provably preserves rendering quality once the target resolution is fixed.

desk verdict First real coreset theorems for 3DGS, with solid prune-only empirics; the rendered transfer still hangs on unmeasured transmittance stability. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.02721 v1 pith:CTY2IAFK submitted 2026-07-02 cs.CV cs.GRcs.LG

Waseem Mousa , Alaa Maalouf This is my paper
classification cs.CVcs.GRcs.LG
keywords 3DGaussianSplattingcoresetssensitivitysamplingprovablepruningnovel-viewsynthesismodelcompressiontransmittancestability
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

Huge 3D Gaussian Splatting scenes need aggressive compression for limited hardware, but most pruning methods are heuristic and then lean on expensive fine-tuning to regain quality. This paper asks whether a much smaller weighted subset of Gaussians can provably preserve the rendered objective. It first proves that no non-trivial multiplicative coreset exists if every possible view and ray is allowed, because individual Gaussians can be isolated. Once the guarantee is restricted to a finite family of representative views, rays, or tiles that match a desired rendering resolution, sensitivity sampling yields the first weighted coreset theorem for 3DGS, with subset size that grows only logarithmically in the number of queries. Under mild validity and log-transmittance stability assumptions the fixed-objective guarantee transfers to true front-to-back re-rendering. Empirically the resulting prune rule is strongest precisely when recovery compute is scarce: at high prune ratios with zero or very short fine-tuning it outperforms competing heuristics.

What carries the argument

Gaussian sensitivity: each Gaussian’s maximum relative contribution max_q a(G,g_i,q)/A(G,q) over the representative queries. Sampling proportional to these scores, then reweighting by inverse probability, yields an unbiased estimator of the frozen full-scene objective and, after a Chernoff-plus-union-bound argument, the coreset size bound.

What would settle it

On a standard 3DGS scene, measure the realized max |log T − log T_w| after the sensitivity prune; if it is large while image metrics still match the coreset prediction, or if a uniform or heuristic prune of equal size systematically beats the coreset on prune-only PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS at 90–99 percent pruning, the central transfer claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

No non-trivial multiplicative coreset exists for unrestricted 3DGS rendering, but for any prescribed finite representative query family induced by a target rendering resolution, sensitivity sampling produces a weighted subset whose size scales only logarithmically with the number of queries and that multiplicatively approximates the full-scene objective; under validity and log-transmittance stability this fixed-objective guarantee becomes a true rendering guarantee.

Load-bearing premise

After pruning and reweighting, the remaining Gaussians must not drastically change the occlusion and transmittance along the representative rays; if that log-transmittance gap grows large, the fixed-objective guarantee no longer controls true re-rendering.

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

3 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper develops a coreset framework for pruning 3D Gaussian Splatting scenes. It proves that no non-trivial multiplicative coreset exists for unrestricted query families that can isolate individual Gaussians (Theorem 1), then gives a positive result for finite representative query sets: sensitivity sampling with m ≥ (3S/ε_c²) log(2|Q'|/δ) yields, w.h.p., an ε_c-coreset for a fixed-objective relaxation Ath that freezes full-scene itemwise contributions (Theorem 2 / Algorithm 1). Under validity and log-transmittance stability |log T − log T_w| ≤ γ, this transfers to a multiplicative guarantee for true front-to-back rendering Aw with an explicit ε_r (Theorem 3); a Lipschitz ρ-net argument extends the guarantee to compact query regions (Theorem 4). Empirically, sensitivity-based pruning is evaluated on 13 standard scenes in prune-only and short-recovery (≤200 iterations) regimes at aggressive ratios (0.80–0.99), with ablations over aggregation levels, and is reported to outperform GHAP, PUP, Trimming the Fat, and uniform sampling especially without long finetuning. Code is released.

Significance. If the results hold as stated, this is a meaningful first step toward approximation-theoretic 3DGS compression: an impossibility result that clarifies the role of query restriction, a standard sensitivity/Chernoff coreset for a well-defined fixed objective, and an explicit (if conditional) bridge to true compositing. The open-source pipeline and extensive prune-only / short-recovery tables on the usual 13 scenes are real strengths for a systems-facing theory paper, and the practical gains in the low-recovery regime are the right evaluation target for deployment-oriented pruning. The work is not a universal continuous-rendering coreset theorem—and does not claim to be—but it supplies a clean layered structure (impossibility → finite Ath → transfer under γ → covers) that future compression methods can build on.

major comments (3)
  1. §3.3, Assumption 1 and Theorem 3: the transfer from Ath to true rendered Aw is the paper’s load-bearing “rendering guarantee,” and it rests entirely on |log T(G,g_i,q) − log T_w(G,g_i,q)| ≤ γ for every retained Gaussian and every q ∈ Q′, plus validity (Def. 2). The manuscript never reports empirical γ, max |log(T/T_w)|, the fraction of (Gaussian, query) pairs violating a small γ, or the fraction of invalid factors after pruning at the advertised ratios 0.90–0.99 (Tables 1–4, Figs. 2–3). At 99% pruning, prefix products of (1−w_j ρ_j) can change substantially, so γ may be large; without measurement, Theorem 3 remains a conditional implication rather than a verified guarantee for the experimental regime. Please add these diagnostics (even on a subset of scenes/views) and discuss how ε_r behaves for the observed γ, or clearly demote the experimental claim to “theory-inspired pruning with Ath
  2. §3.5 and §4 (per-scene variant used as “Ours”): the finite-query theorem guarantees the chosen aggregated objective over Q′. The main experiments use the coarsest per-scene aggregation (one global objective over all selected views/pixels/channels), so the formal guarantee is only for that scalar scene-level sum, not for per-pixel or novel-view RGB fidelity reported via PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS. The ablations (Figs. 4–5, 22–23) show coarser aggregation works better in practice, which is useful, but the paper should state explicitly that image metrics are outside the proved objective and are empirical evidence of transfer, not instances of Theorem 2/3. Aligning at least one experiment with a denser Q′ (e.g., per-tile) and reporting both the coreset objective error and image metrics would close this theory–practice gap.
  3. Algorithm 1 and Definition 1: the coreset is a weighted vector w with wi = n_i/(m p(g_i)), and Aw uses reweighted opacities in the transmittance product. Confirm in the experimental protocol (Appendix A) that these inverse-probability weights are applied at render time in the prune-only setting, not only used for sampling then discarded in favor of unweighted support. If experiments effectively hard-prune without weights, the Ath unbiasedness and concentration analysis do not apply as stated; either implement the weighted renderer or restate the practical method as importance sampling for subset selection with a separate (weaker) analysis.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: classical sensitivity sampling + Chernoff for a fixed-itemwise relaxation, with an explicit (non-fitted) transfer assumption to true rendering.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. Theorem 1 is a direct constructive impossibility via isolating queries. Theorem 2 defines sensitivity from the full-scene terms a(G,gi,q)/A(G,q), samples with inverse-probability weights, and obtains a multiplicative guarantee for the auxiliary fixed-objective Ath_w by standard multiplicative Chernoff + union bound over finite Q' (Appendix C.3); Ath is an explicit relaxation, not a quantity fitted to the target error, so the guarantee is not forced by construction of a data fit. Theorem 3 transfers Ath to true Aw only under the stated validity and log-transmittance stability assumptions (Assumption 1 / Def. 2), which are external conditions rather than self-referential definitions or fitted constants; the paper does not claim an unconditional rendering guarantee. Compact-region extension (Theorem 4) is a standard Lipschitz cover argument. Related-work citations to prior coreset/sensitivity papers (including some by an author) supply background technique but are not load-bearing uniqueness claims that force the 3DGS result; the proofs are written out fully. Empirical prune-only gains are separate from the formal claims and do not retroactively define the theorems. No self-definitional loop, no fitted-input-called-prediction, and no ansatz smuggled as derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The positive theorems rest on classical coreset/sensitivity machinery plus domain modeling of 3DGS compositing and two paper-specific stability conditions that convert a fixed-itemwise guarantee into a true re-render guarantee. Free parameters are the usual coreset knobs (m, ε, δ) and practical aggregation choices; no new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • coreset sample size m (or prune ratio)
    Chosen to meet the Chernoff bound or the experimental compression targets (0.80–0.99); controls both theory and reported quality.
  • ε_c, δ (relative error and failure probability)
    User-chosen accuracy/confidence parameters that set the sample-size lower bound in Theorem 2.
  • log-transmittance stability radius γ
    Appears in the rendered error ε_r; not measured on data, treated as an assumption that must hold for Theorem 3.
  • query aggregation level (channel/pixel/tile/scene) and L1/L2/color variants
    Engineering choices that redefine the objective before sensitivity scoring; best empirical results use scene-level and L2-nocolor variants beyond the pure per-channel theorem.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Standard multiplicative Chernoff / sensitivity-sampling coreset framework for nonnegative objectives
    Used to prove Theorem 2 from the definition s(g_i)=max_q a(G,g_i,q)/A(G,q).
  • domain assumption 3DGS front-to-back compositing model with projected kernels, opacities, and prefix transmittance
    Defines A, a(G,g_i,q), T, and the true reduced render A_w throughout §3.
  • domain assumption Finite representative query family Q' induced by target resolution (views/rays/pixels/tiles)
    Necessary after the unrestricted impossibility (Theorem 1); all positive guarantees are only over Q'.
  • domain assumption Weighted rendering validity: 0 ≤ w_i ρ(g_i,q) < 1 on Q'
    Definition 2; required so reduced-scene transmittances are well-defined.
  • ad hoc to paper Log-transmittance stability |log T − log T_w| ≤ γ on retained Gaussians and Q'
    Assumption 1; load-bearing for transferring Ath guarantees to true A_w (Theorem 3).
  • domain assumption Lipschitz continuity of full and reduced renders on compact query regions (for Theorem 4)
    Assumption 2; justified by smooth camera/kernel maps away from ordering discontinuities.
invented entities (2)
  • Fixed-objective relaxation Ath_w (frozen full-scene itemwise contributions)
    purpose: Restores an additive coreset-friendly decomposition once true transmittance coupling is broken by pruning
    Defined in §3.2; intermediate theoretical object, not claimed as a physical quantity.
  • Gaussian sensitivity s(g_i) for 3DGS rendering objectives independent evidence
    purpose: Importance scores that drive the sampling distribution for the coreset
    Standard sensitivity idea specialized to per-query relative contributions of Gaussians; definition (1).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Provable Pruning for Efficient 3D Gaussian Splatting via Coresets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CTY2IAFK

@misc{pith2026260702721,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Provable Pruning for Efficient 3D Gaussian Splatting via Coresets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CTY2IAFK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.02721}
}
read the original abstract

3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) enables high-quality real-time novel-view synthesis, but practical scenes often contain millions of Gaussians, making compression essential for deployment on limited hardware. Existing reduction methods are effective but mostly heuristic: they provide no multiplicative approximation guarantee for the rendered objective, and thus rely heavily on costly post-pruning finetuning to recover quality. We ask a basic question: can a 3DGS scene be provably replaced by a much smaller weighted subset (coreset) while preserving the objective of interest? We first show that, in the unrestricted setting, no non-trivial multiplicative 3DGS coreset exists. We then show that multiplicative guarantees are not impossible, but resolution-dependent. For a prescribed rendering resolution, such as representative views or grids of views/rays, we provide the first weighted coreset construction theorem for 3DGS. The construction samples Gaussians by sensitivity: provable importance scores measuring each Gaussian's role in the full-scene objective. Finally, under explicit validity and log-transmittance stability assumptions, we turn this objective guarantee into a rendering guarantee. Empirically, our method is strongest where deployment needs it most: aggressive compression with no or minimal recovery compute. In prune-only and very short finetuning regimes, it achieves state-of-the-art performance, showing that principled importance estimation can be both theoretically meaningful and practically useful. Open-source code is available at https://github.com/waseem-m/3dgs_provable_coresets.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.02721 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our method prunes a pretrained 3D Gaussian scene while provably preserving the quality on a set [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Combined prune-only curves and deltas for mip-NeRF 360: prune-only deltas (top row), and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Short-recovery comparison against other methods on mip [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (20 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Short-recovery comparison of our methods variants on mip [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation: prune-only on Mip-NeRF 360 (prune ratios 0.90–0.99) across our variants. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Prune-only averages per dataset. B.3 Short-recovery results The first group fixes our per-scene variant and shows how its quality changes with prune ratio and recovery budget. The second group compares our method with all competing methods at the most aggressive prune …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Transposed short-recovery curves for our scene-variant on mip-NeRF 360. The x-axis is prune ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Transposed short-recovery curves for our scene-variant on Deep Blending, using the same layout as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Transposed short-recovery curves for our scene-variant on Tanks & Temples, using the same layout [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Short-recovery comparison on mip-NeRF 360 at prune ratios 0.95, 0.97, and 0.99. Curves compare [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Short-recovery comparison on Deep Blending at prune ratios 0.95, 0.97, and 0.99. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Short-recovery comparison on Tanks & Temples at prune ratios 0.95, 0.97, and 0.99. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Per-scene prune-only curves for Deep Blending. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Per-scene prune-only curves for Tanks & Temples. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Per-scene prune-only curves for mip-NeRF 360. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Recovery ablation across our variants for mip-NeRF 360. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Recovery ablation across our variants for Deep Blending. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Recovery ablation across our variants for Tanks & Temples. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Full short-recovery comparison for mip-NeRF 360 across prune ratios 0.90–0.99. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Full short-recovery comparison for Deep Blending across prune ratios 0.90–0.99. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Full short-recovery comparison for Tanks & Temples across prune ratios 0.90–0.99. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Ablation study. 30 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Ablation study. C Theoretical Details and Complete Proofs This section gives the complete formal development in the same logical order as the main paper: setup and notation, unrestricted impossibility, the finite-query fixed-objective theorem, transfer to true renderi…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    3D gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42(4):139:1–139:14, 2023

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis. 3D gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.ACM Transactions on Graphics, 42(4):139:1–139:14, 2023. doi: 10.1145/3592433

    doi:10.1145/3592433 2023

  2. [2]

    Mip-Splatting: Alias-free 3D gaussian splatting

    Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Binbin Huang, Torsten Sattler, and Andreas Geiger. Mip-Splatting: Alias-free 3D gaussian splatting. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 19447–19456, 2024. doi: 10.1109/CVPR52733.2024.01839

    doi:10.1109/cvpr52733.2024.01839 2024

  3. [3]

    Scaffold-GS: Structured 3D gaussians for view-adaptive rendering

    Tao Lu, Mulin Yu, Linning Xu, Yuanbo Xiangli, Limin Wang, Dahua Lin, and Bo Dai. Scaffold-GS: Structured 3D gaussians for view-adaptive rendering. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 20654–20664, 2024. doi: 10.1109/ CVPR52733.2024.01952

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    2D gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields

    Binbin Huang, Zehao Yu, Anpei Chen, Andreas Geiger, and Shenghua Gao. 2D gaussian splatting for geometrically accurate radiance fields. InSIGGRAPH 2024 Conference Papers, pages 32:1–32:11,

    2024

  5. [5]

    doi: 10.1145/3641519.3657428

    doi:10.1145/3641519.3657428

  6. [6]

    Analytic-Splatting: Anti-aliased 3D gaussian splatting via analytic integration

    Zhihao Liang, Qi Zhang, Wenbo Hu, Lei Zhu, Ying Feng, and Kui Jia. Analytic-Splatting: Anti-aliased 3D gaussian splatting via analytic integration. InComputer Vision – ECCV 2024, pages 281–297, 2024. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-72643-9_17

    doi:10.1007/978-3-031-72643-9_17 2024

  7. [7]

    3D gaussian splatting as markov chain monte carlo

    Shakiba Kheradmand, Daniel Rebain, Gopal Sharma, Weiwei Sun, Yang-Che Tseng, Hossam Isack, Abhishek Kar, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Kwang Moo Yi. 3D gaussian splatting as markov chain monte carlo. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. doi: 10.52202/079017-2573

    doi:10.52202/079017-2573 2024

  8. [8]

    3D gaussian splatting: Survey, technologies, challenges, and opportunities.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 35(7):6832–6852, 2025

    Yanqi Bao, Tianyu Ding, Jing Huo, Yaoli Liu, Yuxin Li, Wenbin Li, Yang Gao, and Jiebo Luo. 3D gaussian splatting: Survey, technologies, challenges, and opportunities.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 35(7):6832–6852, 2025. doi: 10.1109/TCSVT.2025.3538684

    doi:10.1109/tcsvt.2025.3538684 2025

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Bagdasarian, Paul Knoll, Yi-Hsin Li, Florian Barthel, Anna Hilsmann, Peter Eisert, and Wieland Morgenstern

    Milena T. Bagdasarian, Paul Knoll, Yi-Hsin Li, Florian Barthel, Anna Hilsmann, Peter Eisert, and Wieland Morgenstern. 3DGS.zip: A survey on 3D gaussian splatting compression methods.Computer Graphics Forum, 44(2):e70078, 2025. doi: 10.1111/cgf.70078

    2025 doi

  2. [10]

    Mini-Splatting: Representing scenes with a constrained number of gaussians

    Guangchi Fang and Bing Wang. Mini-Splatting: Representing scenes with a constrained number of gaussians. InComputer Vision – ECCV 2024, pages 165–181, 2024. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-72980-5_ 10

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Taming3DGS:High-qualityradiancefieldswithlimitedresources

    Saswat Subhajyoti Mallick, Rahul Goel, Bernhard Kerbl, Markus Steinberger, Francisco Vicente Carrasco,andFernandoDeLaTorre. Taming3DGS:High-qualityradiancefieldswithlimitedresources. InSIGGRAPH Asia 2024 Conference Papers, pages 2:1–2:11, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3680528.3687694

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    LightGaussian: Unbounded 3D gaussian compression with 15x reduction and 200+ FPS

    Zhiwen Fan, Kevin Wang, Kairun Wen, Zehao Zhu, Dejia Xu, and Zhangyang Wang. LightGaussian: Unbounded 3D gaussian compression with 15x reduction and 200+ FPS. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. doi: 10.52202/079017-4447

    2024 doi

  5. [13]

    EAGLES: Efficient accelerated 3D gaussians with lightweight EncodingS

    Sharath Girish, Kamal Gupta, and Abhinav Shrivastava. EAGLES: Efficient accelerated 3D gaussians with lightweight EncodingS. InComputer Vision – ECCV 2024, pages 54–71, 2024. doi: 10.1007/ 978-3-031-73036-8_4. 12

    2024

  6. [14]

    Compact 3D gaussian representation for radiance field

    Joo Chan Lee, Daniel Rho, Xiangyu Sun, Jong Hwan Ko, and Eunbyung Park. Compact 3D gaussian representation for radiance field. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 21719–21728, 2024. doi: 10.1109/CVPR52733.2024.02052

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    MesonGS:Post-trainingcompressionof3Dgaussiansviaefficientattributetransformation

    Shuzhao Xie, Weixiang Zhang, Chen Tang, Yunpeng Bai, Rongwei Lu, Shijia Ge, and Zhi Wang. MesonGS:Post-trainingcompressionof3Dgaussiansviaefficientattributetransformation. InComputer Vision – ECCV 2024, pages 434–452, 2024. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-73414-4_25

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Trimming the fat: Efficientcompressionof3Dgaussiansplatsthroughpruning

    Muhammad Salman Ali, Maryam Qamar, Sung-Ho Bae, and Enzo Tartaglione. Trimming the fat: Efficientcompressionof3Dgaussiansplatsthroughpruning. InProceedingsofthe35thBritishMachine Vision Conference (BMVC), 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    PUP 3D-GS: Principled uncertainty pruning for 3D gaussian splatting

    Alex Hanson, Allen Tu, Vasu Singla, Mayuka Jayawardhana, Matthias Zwicker, and Tom Goldstein. PUP 3D-GS: Principled uncertainty pruning for 3D gaussian splatting. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5949–5958, 2025....

    2025 doi

  10. [18]

    Gaussianherdingacrosspens: An optimaltransportperspectiveonglobalgaussianreductionfor3DGS

    TaoWang,MengyuLi,GeduoZeng,ChengMeng,andQiongZhang. Gaussianherdingacrosspens: An optimaltransportperspectiveonglobalgaussianreductionfor3DGS. InAdvancesinNeuralInformation Processing Systems, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    optimizing-sparsifying

    Yangming Zhang, Wenqi Jia, Wei Niu, and Miao Yin. GaussianSpa: An “optimizing-sparsifying” simplification framework for compact and high-quality 3D gaussian splatting. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 26673–26682,

  12. [20]

    doi: 10.1109/CVPR52734.2025.02484

    2025 doi

  13. [21]

    PCGS: Progressive compression of 3D gaussian splatting.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 40(4):3111–3119, 2026

    Yihang Chen, Mengyao Li, Qianyi Wu, Weiyao Lin, Mehrtash Harandi, and Jianfei Cai. PCGS: Progressive compression of 3D gaussian splatting.Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 40(4):3111–3119, 2026. doi: 10.1609/aaai.v40i4.37304

    2026 doi

  14. [22]

    Optimized minimal 3D gaussian splatting

    Joo Chan Lee, Jong Hwan Ko, and Eunbyung Park. Optimized minimal 3D gaussian splatting. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2025

    2025

  15. [23]

    Compressing 3D gaussian splatting by noise-substituted vector quantization

    Haishan Wang, Mohammad Hassan Vali, and Arno Solin. Compressing 3D gaussian splatting by noise-substituted vector quantization. InScandinavian Conference on Image Analysis (SCIA), pages 338–352, 2025. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-95911-0_24

    2025 doi

  16. [24]

    Compression in 3D gaussian splatting: A survey of methods, trends, and future directions.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2026

    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.IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, 2026. doi: 10.11...

    2026

  17. [25]

    A unified framework for approximating and clustering data

    Dan Feldman and Michael Langberg. A unified framework for approximating and clustering data. In Proceedings of the 43rd Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing, pages 569–578, 2011. doi: 10.1145/1993636.1993712

    2011 doi

  18. [26]

    New frameworks for offline and streaming coreset constructions.arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.00889, 2016

    Vladimir Braverman, Dan Feldman, Harry Lang, Adiel Statman, and Samson Zhou. New frameworks for offline and streaming coreset constructions.arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.00889, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Phillips

    Jeff M. Phillips. Coresets and sketches. In Csaba D. Tóth, Joseph O’Rourke, and Jacob E. Goodman, editors,HandbookofDiscreteandComputationalGeometry,pages1269–1288.ChapmanandHall/CRC, 3rd edition, 2017. doi: 10.1201/9781315119601-48. 13

    2017 doi

  20. [28]

    Core-sets: An updated survey.WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 10(1): e1335, 2020

    Dan Feldman. Core-sets: An updated survey.WIREs Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 10(1): e1335, 2020. doi: 10.1002/widm.1335

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    Data-dependent coresets for compressing neural networks with applications to generalization bounds

    Cenk Baykal, Lucas Liebenwein, Igor Gilitschenski, Dan Feldman, and Daniela Rus. Data-dependent coresets for compressing neural networks with applications to generalization bounds. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Pruning neural networks via coresets and convex geometry: Towards no assumptions

    Murad Tukan, Loay Mualem, and Alaa Maalouf. Pruning neural networks via coresets and convex geometry: Towards no assumptions. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 38003–38019, 2022. doi: 10.52202/068431-2754

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    Provable filter pruning for efficient neural networks

    Lucas Liebenwein, Cenk Baykal, Harry Lang, Dan Feldman, and Daniela Rus. Provable filter pruning for efficient neural networks. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Pixel-GS: Density control with pixel-aware gradient for 3D gaussian splatting

    Zheng Zhang, Wenbo Hu, Yixing Lao, Tong He, and Hengshuang Zhao. Pixel-GS: Density control with pixel-aware gradient for 3D gaussian splatting. InComputer Vision – ECCV 2024, pages 326–342, 2024. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-72655-2_19

    2024 doi

  25. [33]

    AbsGS: Recovering fine details in 3D gaussian splatting

    Zongxin Ye, Wenyu Li, Sidun Liu, Peng Qiao, and Yong Dou. AbsGS: Recovering fine details in 3D gaussian splatting. InProceedings of the 32nd ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 1053–1061, 2024. doi: 10.1145/3664647.3681361

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

    Geometricapproximationviacoresets

    PankajK.Agarwal,SarielHar-Peled,andKasturiR.Varadarajan. Geometricapproximationviacoresets. InJacobE.Goodman,JánosPach,andEmoWelzl,editors,CombinatorialandComputationalGeometry, pages 1–30. Cambridge University Press, 2005. doi: 10.1017/9781009701259.002

    2005 doi

  27. [35]

    Clarkson

    Mihai Bădoiu and Kenneth L. Clarkson. Smaller core-sets for balls. InProceedings of the Fourteenth Annual ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms (SODA), pages 801–802, 2003

    2003

  28. [36]

    Alper Yıldırım

    Piyush Kumar and E. Alper Yıldırım. Minimum-volume enclosing ellipsoids and core sets.Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 126(1):1–21, 2005. doi: 10.1007/s10957-005-2653-6

    2005 doi

  29. [37]

    Fast and accurate least-mean-squares solvers

    Alaa Maalouf, Ibrahim Jubran, and Dan Feldman. Fast and accurate least-mean-squares solvers. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 8307–8318, 2019

    2019

  30. [38]

    AutoCoreset: An automatic practical coreset construction framework

    Alaa Maalouf, Murad Tukan, Vladimir Braverman, and Daniela Rus. AutoCoreset: An automatic practical coreset construction framework. InProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 23451–23466, 2023

    2023

  31. [39]

    Tight sensitivity bounds for smaller coresets

    Alaa Maalouf, Adiel Statman, and Dan Feldman. Tight sensitivity bounds for smaller coresets. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 2051–2061, 2020. doi: 10.1145/3394486.3403256

    doi

  32. [40]

    Scalable k-meansclusteringvialightweightcoresets

    OlivierBachem,MarioLucic,andAndreasKrause. Scalable k-meansclusteringvialightweightcoresets. InProceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 1119–1127, 2018. doi: 10.1145/3219819.3219973

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    Practicalcoresetconstructionsformachinelearning

    OlivierBachem,MarioLucic,andAndreasKrause. Practicalcoresetconstructionsformachinelearning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1703.06476, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Sets clustering

    Ibrahim Jubran, Murad Tukan, Alaa Maalouf, and Dan Feldman. Sets clustering. InProceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4994–5005, 2020. 14

    2020

  35. [43]

    Provable data subset selection for efficient neural networks training

    Murad Tukan, Samson Zhou, Alaa Maalouf, Daniela Rus, Vladimir Braverman, and Dan Feldman. Provable data subset selection for efficient neural networks training. InProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 34533–34555, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Activelearningforconvolutionalneuralnetworks: ACore-Setapproach

    OzanSenerandSilvioSavarese. Activelearningforconvolutionalneuralnetworks: ACore-Setapproach. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2018

    2018

  37. [45]

    Coresets for data-efficient training of machine learning models

    Baharan Mirzasoleiman, Jeff Bilmes, and Jure Leskovec. Coresets for data-efficient training of machine learning models. InProceedings of the 37th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6950–6960, 2020

    2020

  38. [46]

    Towards sustainable learning: Coresets for data- efficient deep learning

    Yu Yang, Hao Kang, and Baharan Mirzasoleiman. Towards sustainable learning: Coresets for data- efficient deep learning. InProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 39314–39330, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Hybrid control and learning with coresets for autonomous vehicles

    Guy Rosman, Liam Paull, and Daniela Rus. Hybrid control and learning with coresets for autonomous vehicles. In2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 6894–6901, 2017. doi: 10.1109/IROS.2017.8206612

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    Overviewofaccuratecoresets.WileyInterdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 11(6):e1429, 2021

    IbrahimJubran,AlaaMaalouf,andDanFeldman. Overviewofaccuratecoresets.WileyInterdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 11(6):e1429, 2021. doi: 10.1002/widm.1429

    2021 doi

  41. [49]

    DataS3: Dataset subset selection for specialization.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.16277, 2025

    NehaHulkund,AlaaMaalouf,LeviCai,DanielYang,Tsun-HsuanWang,AbigailO’Neil,TimmHaucke, Sandeep Mukherjee, Vikram Ramaswamy, Judy Hansen Shen, Gabriel Tseng, Mike Walmsley, Daniela Rus, Ken Goldberg, Hannah Kerner, Irene Chen, Yogesh Girdhar, and Sara Beery. DataS3: Dataset subset...

    2025 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Efficient test-time finetuning of LLMs via convex reconstruction and gradient caching.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.30337, 2026

    Alaa Khamis and Alaa Maalouf. Efficient test-time finetuning of LLMs via convex reconstruction and gradient caching.arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.30337, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  43. [51]

    A unified approach to coresetlearning.IEEETransactionsonNeuralNetworksandLearningSystems, 35(5):6893–6905, 2024

    Alaa Maalouf, Gilad Eini, Ben Mussay, Dan Feldman, and Margarita Osadchy. A unified approach to coresetlearning.IEEETransactionsonNeuralNetworksandLearningSystems, 35(5):6893–6905, 2024. doi: 10.1109/TNNLS.2022.3213169

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    Coresets for near-convex functions

    Murad Tukan, Alaa Maalouf, and Dan Feldman. Coresets for near-convex functions. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 997–1009, 2020

    2020

  45. [53]

    Data- independent neural pruning via coresets

    Ben Mussay, Margarita Osadchy, Vladimir Braverman, Samson Zhou, and Dan Feldman. Data- independent neural pruning via coresets. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2020

    2020

  46. [54]

    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. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5470–5479, 2022

    2022

  47. [55]

    Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction.ACM Transactions on Graphics, 36(4):78:1–78:13, 2017

    Arno Knapitsch, Jaesik Park, Qian-Yi Zhou, and Vladlen Koltun. Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction.ACM Transactions on Graphics, 36(4):78:1–78:13, 2017. doi: 10.1145/3072959.3073599

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    Deep blending for free-viewpoint image-based rendering.ACM Transactions on Graphics, 37(6): 257:1–257:15, 2018

    Peter Hedman, Julien Philip, True Price, Jan-Michael Frahm, George Drettakis, and Gabriel Brostow. Deep blending for free-viewpoint image-based rendering.ACM Transactions on Graphics, 37(6): 257:1–257:15, 2018. doi: 10.1145/3272127.3275084. 15 A Reproducibility and Experimenta...

    2018 doi

  49. [57]

    the full rendered objectiveq7→A(G, q)is Lipschitz onQr with constantLfull

  50. [58]

    the reduced rendered objectiveq7→Aw(G, q)is Lipschitz onQr with constantLw

  51. [59]

    the full rendered objective is bounded away from zero: A(G, q)≥A min >0for everyq∈ Q r. Proposition 1(Why the Lipschitz assumption is reasonable).Suppose on a regionQr: (i) the relevant set of Gaussians is finite; (ii) the front-to-back order does not jump discontinuously insi...

  52. [60]

    impossibility in the unrestricted general case

  53. [61]

    existence on a finite representative family for a fixed objective

  54. [62]

    transfer to true rendering under explicit transmittance stability; and

  55. [63]

    extension to compact regions by representative covers. This formulation is intentionally conservative, but it makes the logical structure of the proof transparent and leaves no hidden gap between the negative and positive parts of the claim. 39

Pith tools

Reviewed July 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.