Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 61 references

3DGBGS: 3D Granular Ball Gaussian Splatting for Compact Novel View Synthesis

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Replacing fixed-voxel anchor grids with adaptive 3D granular balls cuts initial anchor counts by 37.1%, final anchors by 10.0%, and stored model size by 9.8% across 19 scenes, at nearly unchanged rendering quality.

desk verdict A well-executed compactness patch for Scaffold-GS — the granular-ball idea is new and the numbers hang together, but the stopping rule's undefined 'appearance attribute' needs to be pinned down before the claim fully lands. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.26578 v1 pith:73CC7US2 submitted 2026-07-29 cs.CV

Meng Yang , Shuyin Xia , Dawei Dai , YiWang This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DGaussianSplattingGranularBallComputingAnchorinitializationNovelviewsynthesisCompactrepresentationScaffold-GSScalepriorSfMpointcloud
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 tries to show that the fixed-voxel anchor initialization used by anchor-based 3D Gaussian splatting is wasteful: it spreads support points uniformly over a point cloud that is spatially non-uniform. Its proposed swap, 3DGBGS, partitions the SfM point cloud into adaptive 3D granular balls—large balls over smooth, redundant regions and small balls over complex geometry—then uses ball centers as anchors and ball radii as scale priors. Across 19 scenes from four benchmarks, this cuts initial anchors by 37.1%, final anchors by 10.0%, and model storage by 9.8% while keeping PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS within a few hundredths of the Scaffold-GS baseline. The change is deliberately drop-in: the MLPs, losses, and growing/pruning logic are left untouched.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a recursive PCA-based binary partition of the SfM point cloud into disjoint 3D granular balls, each described by a center and an RMS radius. Partitioning stops when a ball is small, too deep, or both spatially compact and appearance-consistent (sigma_a <= tau_a = 0.02); GBAI maps ball centers to anchors, and GBSP clamps each ball radius to [0.25, 4.0] times the nearest-neighbor anchor distance and fuses it with that distance (alpha = 0.5) to initialize learnable log-scales. The stopping criterion is what decides where coarse balls survive, and therefore where anchor savings come from.

What would settle it

Render a scene with a monochrome but geometrically intricate object using both 3DGBGS and Scaffold-GS; if PSNR drops by more than roughly 0.2 dB or the post-training final anchor count exceeds the baseline, the appearance-consistency proxy has failed. A cheaper check: track anchors removed in smooth-colored regions and see whether dynamic anchor growing re-adds them at the same locations during training.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that granular-ball organization of the input point cloud, before any Gaussian is generated, is what unlocks a more compact anchor-based 3DGS. Granular Ball Anchor Initialization (GBAI) places anchors at granular-ball centers, and the Granular Ball Scale Prior (GBSP) clips each ball radius against the nearest-neighbor spacing and fuses the two to seed initial Gaussian scales. The result is 30-42.6% fewer initial anchors across the four benchmarks, 8-12% fewer final anchors after the unchanged growing/pruning phase, and 7.9-11.9% less storage, with rendering quality essentially matching Scaffold-GS (PSNR -0.05 to -0.16 dB on three benchmarks and +0.06 dB on BungeeNeRF).

Load-bearing premise

The recursive partition assumes that low variation in SfM point appearance (sigma_a <= 0.02) reliably marks a region that one large granular ball can safely cover; if a surface is color-flat but geometrically detailed, those large balls delete anchors that the later growing step may not re-seed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Initial anchor savings largely survive optimization: after identical dynamic growing and pruning, final anchors remain 8-12% lower, so the compact initialization is not erased by regrowth.
  • Storage drops by roughly a tenth on every benchmark, and the measured MLP-component GFLOPs drop by up to about 30% on one scene, so both training and rendering become cheaper.
  • Because only anchor initialization and scale prior change, the approach can be dropped into any Scaffold-GS-style anchor pipeline without retuning losses or network architecture.
  • The maximum partition depth can vary from 10 to 18 with little change in final anchor count, indicating that final compactness is partly absorbed by dynamic growing and pruning, not solely determined by initialization.
  • On BungeeNeRF the method improves PSNR and SSIM while removing 12% of final anchors, suggesting that scale-aware initialization can sometimes help quality rather than merely trade it away.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The appearance-consistency threshold sigma_a(P_j) <= 0.02 is doing heavy lifting: if SfM point colors are flat across a geometrically intricate surface, the partition will merge points that later anchor growth may not re-seed, so the quality floor likely depends on the color-geometry correlation of the input point cloud.
  • The insensitivity of final anchor counts to maximum partition depth suggests a testable hypothesis: any initialization that respects local density might give similar final compactness, implying the scale prior GBSP may be the more load-bearing of the two components.
  • Combining granular-ball anchors with downstream serialization or compression of anchor features should compound storage savings, since the two target different redundancies: spatial support count versus per-anchor bit cost.
  • A learnable or anisotropic partition (for example, ellipsoidal balls) is a natural extension that would address scenes where local geometry is strongly directional; the paper's own future-work section gestures in this direction.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes 3DGBGS, a variant of Scaffold-GS that replaces fixed voxelization of the SfM point cloud with a recursive granular-ball partition. Granular balls are formed by PCA-based median splits, with a stopping rule based on point count, recursion depth, spatial compactness, and appearance consistency. Anchor positions are set to granular-ball centers (GBAI), and initial Gaussian scales are initialized from a clipped fusion of nearest-neighbor distance and granular-ball radius (GBSP). All subsequent optimization, dynamic anchor growing/pruning, and rendering follow Scaffold-GS unchanged. On 19 scenes from Mip-NeRF360, Tanks&Temples, Deep Blending, and BungeeNeRF, the paper reports average reductions of 37.1% in initial anchors, 10.0% in final anchors, and 9.8% in model storage, with PSNR changes between −0.164 dB and +0.055 dB relative to Scaffold-GS. The key load-bearing assumption is that local appearance variation is a reliable proxy for the fineness of anchor placement needed in a region.

Significance. If the results are correct, 3DGBGS is a useful drop-in compactness improvement for Scaffold-GS-style anchor-based Gaussian splatting. The strengths are the clean ablation design separating GBAI and GBSP, the internally consistent tables, and the fact that the method changes only initialization and scale prior while leaving the rest of the pipeline untouched. The reported anchor and storage reductions are non-trivial, and the quality deltas are small. However, the central adaptive-partition mechanism relies on an appearance attribute that is never defined or analyzed, there are no per-scene quality tables for most datasets, and no seeds or error bars are reported. The single-baseline comparison is appropriate for an initialization-only method, but it limits the generality of the compactness claim. With the appearance proxy made precise and validated, this would be a solid contribution; as written, the central claim is not fully reproducible.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV-A, Eqs. (16), (22), (23)] Eq. (16) defines each SfM point as (x_i,a_i) with a_i ∈ R^3 an "appearance attribute," but the paper never states what a_i is: raw SfM RGB color? a learned feature? in [0,1] or [0,255]? The stopping rule in Eq. (23) uses σ_a(P_j) ≤ τ_a with τ_a = 0.02. If a_i is raw SfM color in 0–255, typical σ_a values are orders of magnitude above 0.02, so the appearance term is effectively inert and the partition is purely geometric. If a_i is normalized to [0,1], the threshold 0.02 is extremely strict and the term behaves very differently. Without this definition, the central adaptive-granularity mechanism is not reproducible, and the claimed connection between appearance consistency and anchor placement is untestable. Please define a_i, specify normalization/preprocessing, and report sensitivity to τ_a, including a disabled-appearance ablation.
  2. [Section IV-A, Eq. (23)] The recursive split trusts σ_a(P_j) ≤ τ_a as evidence that one granular ball can cover a region. This assumes low appearance variation implies geometric simplicity, which is not generally true: a color-flat but geometry-rich surface (e.g., white plaster relief, a wire fence, or a shiny surface with view-dependent highlights) can have small σ_a yet require several anchors for detached or discontinuous surfaces. The paper provides no per-region analysis or counter-example test. If such regions exist, the large granular balls would remove anchors that dynamic growing/pruning may not recover under the same budget, and the "comparable quality" claim could break. A concrete test would be to run 3DGBGS on a color-flat/geometry-rich scene, or to disable σ_a by setting τ_a = 0 and compare final anchors and PSNR; if results are identical, the appearance term is inert and should be stated as such.
  3. [Section V-B, Table I] The quality comparison is reported only as dataset averages. For the 19 scenes, there is no per-scene quality table for Mip-NeRF360, Tanks&Temples, or Deep Blending; Table III gives per-scene results only for BungeeNeRF. The reported PSNR deltas are small (−0.164 to +0.055 dB), but no standard deviations or seeds are provided. If run-to-run variation in Scaffold-GS-style training is of the same order—which is typical for this pipeline—the conclusion that quality is "comparable" is not established. Please report per-scene PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS, or at least the min/max deltas over scenes, and run multiple seeds with variance estimates.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sections II-B and II-D] The claim that 3DGS "draws on" Granular Ball Computing is chronologically unsupported; the 3DGS paper does not cite GBC. Suggest softening to "shares a similar coarse-to-fine principle" rather than implying direct lineage.
  2. [Section IV-A, Eq. (20)] r_j is defined as the root-mean-square distance from the center, which is not a covering radius. If GBSP is intended as a spatial coverage prior, please justify the RMS choice or use a max-distance radius.
  3. [Section V-A and Table I] Storage is defined as "learned anchor parameters and MLP weights." Clarify whether anchor features, scales, offsets, and MLP weights are all included, and whether rendering-time Gaussian attributes are excluded. The exclusion of HAC/ContextGS in Table I is reasonable for the active-anchor focus, but a comparison to SOGS, which reduces feature dimensions, would strengthen the compactness claim.
  4. [Section V-C, Table III] The scene-wise BungeeNeRF ablation is useful, but the table would be more informative if the per-scene PSNR/SSIM/LPIPS were also reported for the full method in Table I; currently only averages are given.
  5. [General] No code or model release is mentioned. Providing the implementation would help reproducibility, especially given the underspecified appearance attribute and the hand-set hyperparameters.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the anchor-count and storage reductions are empirical comparisons against an external baseline, not derivations from the method's own fitted outputs.

full rationale

The paper's headline numbers (37.1% initial-anchor reduction, 10.0% final-anchor reduction, 9.8% storage reduction) are measured outcomes of running a modified Scaffold-GS pipeline against the original on shared benchmarks. They are not derived from the method's own assumptions, nor are any fitted parameters renamed as predictions. GBAI (Eq. 28) simply defines anchors as granular-ball centers, and GBSP (Eqs. 31-33) defines initial scales from ball radii; the resulting counts, storage, and PSNR are empirical facts reported after training, not quantities fitted on a subset and then 'predicted' on a closely related quantity. The recursive partition (Eqs. 16-27) is a concrete algorithm with an appearance-consistency stopping rule; no parameter is fit to the evaluation set and later claimed as an independent prediction. The hyperparameter ablation (e.g., choosing D_max=18 via Deep Blending, Table V) is conventional tuning and affects all reported results, but that is a possible overfitting/correctness risk, not circularity, because the improvements are not claimed to be predictions from those hyperparameters. The heavy self-citation cluster around Granular Ball Computing (refs. [8], [16], and the historical claim that 3DGS 'draws on' GBC) is motivational and rhetorical; even if that historical claim is unsupported by the 3DGS paper, it is not load-bearing for the empirical anchor reductions, which stand on the comparison tables against Scaffold-GS. The undefined appearance attribute a_i in Eq. (16) and the fixed threshold tau_a=0.02 are a genuine robustness gap, with a plausible failure mode on color-flat/geometry-rich regions, but this is a correctness/validation concern, not a circular step, since the stopping rule is not asserted as a derivation of the target metrics. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained as an empirical method comparison; no step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a handful of hand-chosen partition/scale hyperparameters plus two domain assumptions: SfM points carry a usable appearance attribute, and the Scaffold-GS learning/growing pipeline survives a changed initialization. No new physical entity is introduced; granular balls are imported from prior GBC work.

free parameters (7)
  • N_min = 2
    Minimum number of SfM points in a terminal granular ball (Eq. 23). Hand-chosen; larger values would coarsen the anchor layout.
  • D_max = 18
    Maximum PCA recursion depth (Eq. 23). Ablated on Deep Blending (Table V); final anchor count is only weakly sensitive above 14.
  • eta = 1.25
    Radius-control coefficient in the compactness condition r_j <= eta*v (Eq. 23).
  • tau_a = 0.02
    Appearance-consistency threshold in Eq. (23). It directly decides which regions are covered by large balls, so it controls the anchor/quality trade-off.
  • gamma = 0.25
    Minimum-scale ratio in smin = max(gamma*v, 1e-6), Eq. (21), preventing degenerate radii for singleton balls.
  • lambda_min / lambda_max = 0.25 / 4.0
    Clip bounds for the granular-ball scale prior relative to nearest-neighbor scale in Eq. (32).
  • alpha = 0.5
    Fusion weight between nearest-neighbor scale and granular-ball scale in Eq. (33).
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption SfM point clouds carry an appearance attribute a_i whose within-ball variation is an informative measure of local scene complexity.
    Eq. (16) writes P = {(x_i, a_i)} and Eqs. (22)-(23) stop splitting when sigma_a <= tau_a; a_i is never defined or validated.
  • domain assumption Scaffold-GS's learned anchor features, MLP predictors, losses, and dynamic anchor growing/pruning remain effective when anchors are initialized from granular-ball centers instead of voxel centers.
    Section IV-C keeps the Scaffold-GS pipeline unchanged; if the optimizer is initialization-sensitive, the final-anchor/quality equivalence may not hold.
  • ad hoc to paper A median split along the largest principal component produces granular balls whose centers are spatial supports at least as good as voxel centers.
    Section IV-A defines PCA binary partitioning without comparing it to alternative adaptive partitions (e.g., k-means, octree) or giving a theoretical justification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 3DGBGS: 3D Granular Ball Gaussian Splatting for Compact Novel View Synthesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/73CC7US2

@misc{pith2026260726578,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 3DGBGS: 3D Granular Ball Gaussian Splatting for Compact Novel View Synthesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/73CC7US2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.26578}
}
read the original abstract

Three-dimensional Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) enables high-quality real-time novel-view synthesis through explicit Gaussian primitives and differentiable rasterization. 3DGS and Granular Ball Computing (GBC), proposed in 2019, share a natural compatibility in adaptive representation. The efficiency of 3DGS partly stems from a coarse-to-fine and on-demand refinement process that draws on the generation principle of GBC. This connection motivates us to further introduce adaptive granular ball organization into anchor-based 3DGS. Existing anchor-based methods typically construct anchors from sparse SfM point clouds through fixed voxelization, which cannot adequately adapt to spatially non-uniform point distributions and leads to a trade-off among anchor count, model compactness, and rendering quality. To address this issue, we propose 3DGBGS (3D Granular Ball Gaussian Splatting), a compact anchor-based framework for novel-view synthesis. 3DGBGS adaptively partitions SfM point clouds into 3D granular balls, using larger balls to compactly represent smooth and redundant regions and smaller balls to preserve complex geometry and local details. Based on this representation, Granular Ball Anchor Initialization (GBAI) uses granular ball centers to initialize compact anchor positions, while the Granular Ball Scale Prior (GBSP) exploits granular ball radii to provide local scale priors for Gaussian generation. Experiments on four benchmarks show that 3DGBGS reduces initial and final anchors by 37.1% and 10.0%, respectively, and model storage by 9.8% on average, while maintaining comparable rendering quality.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.26578 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overall framework of 3DGBGS. The spatially non-uniform SfM point cloud is first adaptively partitioned into 3D granular balls. Granular Ball Anchor Initialization (GBAI) uses their centers to initialize compact anchor positions, while the Granular Ball Scale Prior (GBSP) exploits their radii to provide local scale priors. Local Gaussian primitives are then generated from the Granular Ball-guided anchors and rendered… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qualitative comparisons of 3DGBGS (ours) with Scaffold-GS [6]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Visual ablation comparison of Scaffold-GS, GBAI, and the complete model. The highlighted regions show that GBAI [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Deepview: View synthesis with learned gradient descent,

    J. Flynn, M. Broxton, P. Debevec, M. DuVall, G. Fyffe, R. Overbeck, N. Snavely, and R. Tucker, “Deepview: View synthesis with learned gradient descent,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019, pp. 2367–2376

    2019

  2. [2]

    Immersive light field video with a layered mesh representation,

    M. Broxton, J. Flynn, R. Overbeck, D. Erickson, P. Hedman, M. Duvall, J. Dourgarian, J. Busch, M. Whalen, and P. Debevec, “Immersive light field video with a layered mesh representation,”ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 86–1, 2020

    2020

  3. [3]

    Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,

    B. Mildenhall, P. Pratul, M. Srinivasan, J. Tancik, R. Barron, R. Ra- mamoorthi, and N. Ng, “Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020

    2020

  4. [4]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering

    B. Kerbl, G. Kopanas, T. Leimk ¨uhler, G. Drettakiset al., “3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.”ACM Trans. Graph., vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 139–1, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Neural fields in robotics: A survey,

    M. Z. Irshad, M. Comi, Y .-C. Lin, N. Heppert, A. Valada, R. Ambrus, Z. Kira, and J. Tremblay, “Neural fields in robotics: A survey,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.20220, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Scaffold-gs: Structured 3d gaussians for view-adaptive rendering,

    T. Lu, M. Yu, L. Xu, Y . Xiangli, L. Wang, D. Lin, and B. Dai, “Scaffold-gs: Structured 3d gaussians for view-adaptive rendering,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 20 654–20 664

    2024

  7. [7]

    Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3d,

    N. Snavely, S. M. Seitz, and R. Szeliski, “Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3d,” inACM siggraph 2006 papers, 2006, pp. 835–846

    2006

  8. [8]

    Granular ball computing classifiers for efficient, scalable and robust learning,

    S. Xia, Y . Liu, X. Ding, G. Wang, H. Yu, and Y . Luo, “Granular ball computing classifiers for efficient, scalable and robust learning,” Information Sciences, vol. 483, pp. 136–152, 2019

    2019

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Graph- based representation for image based on granular-ball,

    X. Shuyin, D. Dawei, Y . Long, Z. Li, L. Danf, W. Guoyet al., “Graph- based representation for image based on granular-ball,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.02388, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Gec: A novel and efficient classifier based on granular-ellipsoid model,

    X. Sun, J. Zhang, B. Huang, X. Wang, T. Wang, H. Li, and X. Jia, “Gec: A novel and efficient classifier based on granular-ellipsoid model,” Information Sciences, vol. 700, p. 121861, 2025

    2025

  3. [11]

    Granular ball sampling for noisy label classification or imbalanced classification,

    S. Xia, S. Zheng, G. Wang, X. Gao, and B. Wang, “Granular ball sampling for noisy label classification or imbalanced classification,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 2144–2155, 2021

    2021

  4. [12]

    An efficient and adaptive granular-ball generation method in classification problem,

    S. Xia, X. Dai, G. Wang, X. Gao, and E. Giem, “An efficient and adaptive granular-ball generation method in classification problem,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 5319–5331, 2022

    2022

  5. [13]

    Ballkk-means: Fast adaptive clustering with no bounds,

    S. Xia, D. Peng, D. Meng, C. Zhang, G. Wang, E. Giem, W. Wei, and Z. Chen, “Ballkk-means: Fast adaptive clustering with no bounds,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 87–99, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    Gbnrs: A novel rough set algorithm for fast adaptive attribute reduction in classification,

    S. Xia, H. Zhang, W. Li, G. Wang, E. Giem, and Z. Chen, “Gbnrs: A novel rough set algorithm for fast adaptive attribute reduction in classification,”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 1231–1242, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Gbrs: A unified granular-ball learning model of pawlak rough set and neighborhood rough set,

    S. Xia, C. Wang, G. Wang, X. Gao, W. Ding, J. Yu, Y . Zhai, and Z. Chen, “Gbrs: A unified granular-ball learning model of pawlak rough set and neighborhood rough set,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 1719–1733, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Granular-ball computing: an efficient, robust, and interpretable adaptive multi-granularity representation and computation method,

    S. Xia, G. Wang, and X. Gao, “Granular-ball computing: an efficient, robust, and interpretable adaptive multi-granularity representation and computation method,”ArXiv, vol. abs/2304.11171, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:258298571

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gbc: An efficient and adaptive clustering algorithm based on granular-ball,

    S. Xia, J. Xie, and G. Wang, “Gbc: An efficient and adaptive clustering algorithm based on granular-ball,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14592, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

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

    J. T. Barron, B. Mildenhall, D. Verbin, P. P. Srinivasan, and P. Hedman, “Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields,” inPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 5470–5479

    2022

  11. [19]

    D- nerf: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes,

    A. Pumarola, E. Corona, G. Pons-Moll, and F. Moreno-Noguer, “D- nerf: Neural radiance fields for dynamic scenes,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 10 318–10 327

    2021

  12. [20]

    Regnerf: Regularizing neural radiance fields for view synthesis from sparse inputs,

    M. Niemeyer, J. T. Barron, B. Mildenhall, M. S. Sajjadi, A. Geiger, and N. Radwan, “Regnerf: Regularizing neural radiance fields for view synthesis from sparse inputs,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 5480–5490

    2022

  13. [21]

    Barf: Bundle-adjusting neural radiance fields,

    C.-H. Lin, W.-C. Ma, A. Torralba, and S. Lucey, “Barf: Bundle-adjusting neural radiance fields,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 5741–5751

    2021

  14. [22]

    Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks,

    S. Fridovich-Keil, A. Yu, M. Tancik, Q. Chen, B. Recht, and A. Kanazawa, “Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 5501–5510

    2022

  15. [23]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,

    T. M ¨uller, A. Evans, C. Schied, and A. Keller, “Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encoding,”ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields,

    A. Chen, Z. Xu, A. Geiger, J. Yu, and H. Su, “Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields,” inProceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 333–350

    2022

  17. [25]

    Dynamic 3d gaussians: Tracking by persistent dynamic view synthesis,

    J. Luiten, G. Kopanas, B. Leibe, and D. Ramanan, “Dynamic 3d gaussians: Tracking by persistent dynamic view synthesis,” in2024 International Conference on 3D Vision. IEEE, 2024, pp. 800–809

    2024

  18. [26]

    4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene rendering,

    G. Wu, T. Yi, J. Fang, L. Xie, X. Zhang, W. Wei, W. Liu, Q. Tian, and X. Wang, “4d gaussian splatting for real-time dynamic scene rendering,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 20 310–20 320

    2024

  19. [27]

    Driv- inggaussian: Composite gaussian splatting for surrounding dynamic au- tonomous driving scenes,

    X. Zhou, Z. Lin, X. Shan, Y . Wang, D. Sun, and M.-H. Yang, “Driv- inggaussian: Composite gaussian splatting for surrounding dynamic au- tonomous driving scenes,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 21 634–21 643

    2024

  20. [28]

    Sparsegs: Real-time 360 sparse view synthesis using gaussian splat- ting,

    H. Xiong, S. Muttukuru, R. Upadhyay, P. Chari, and A. Kadambi, “Sparsegs: Real-time 360 sparse view synthesis using gaussian splat- ting,”arXiv e-prints, pp. arXiv–2312, 2023

    2023

  21. [29]

    Colmap- free 3d gaussian splatting,

    Y . Fu, S. Liu, A. Kulkarni, J. Kautz, A. A. Efros, and X. Wang, “Colmap- free 3d gaussian splatting,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 20 796–20 805

    2024

  22. [30]

    Mip-splatting: Alias-free 3d gaussian splatting,

    Z. Yu, A. Chen, B. Huang, T. Sattler, and A. Geiger, “Mip-splatting: Alias-free 3d gaussian splatting,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 19 447–19 456

    2024

  23. [31]

    Gaussianeditor: Editing 3d gaussians delicately with text instructions,

    J. Wang, J. Fang, X. Zhang, L. Xie, and Q. Tian, “Gaussianeditor: Editing 3d gaussians delicately with text instructions,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 20 902–20 911

    2024

  24. [32]

    Stylegaussian: Instant 3d style transfer with gaussian splatting,

    K. Liu, F. Zhan, M. Xu, C. Theobalt, L. Shao, and S. Lu, “Stylegaussian: Instant 3d style transfer with gaussian splatting,” inSIGGRAPH Asia 2024 Technical Communications, 2024, pp. 1–4. JOURNAL OF LATEX CLASS FILES, VOL. 14, NO. 8, AUGUST 2021 12 TABLE V: Effect of the maximu...

    2024

  25. [33]

    Sogs: Second-order anchor for advanced 3d gaussian splatting,

    J. Zhang, F. Zhan, L. Shao, and S. Lu, “Sogs: Second-order anchor for advanced 3d gaussian splatting,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2025, pp. 11 167–11 176

    2025

  26. [34]

    Topological structure in visual perception,

    L. Chen, “Topological structure in visual perception,”Science, vol. 218, no. 4573, pp. 699–700, 1982

    1982

  27. [35]

    Dgcc: data-driven granular cognitive computing,

    G. Wang, “Dgcc: data-driven granular cognitive computing,”Granular Computing, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 343–355, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Granular ball guided selector for attribute reduction,

    Y . Chen, P. Wang, X. Yang, J. Mi, and D. Liu, “Granular ball guided selector for attribute reduction,”Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 229, p. 107326, 2021

    2021

  29. [37]

    Vpgb: A granular- ball based model for attribute reduction and classification with label noise,

    X. Peng, P. Wang, S. Xia, C. Wang, and W. Chen, “Vpgb: A granular- ball based model for attribute reduction and classification with label noise,”Information Sciences, vol. 611, pp. 504–521, 2022

    2022

  30. [38]

    Granular-ball fuzzy set and its implementation in svm,

    S. Xia, X. Lian, G. Wang, X. Gao, and Y . Shao, “Granular-ball fuzzy set and its implementation in svm,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11675, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Gbcd: a granular- ball based discretization method for continuous valued attributes,

    W. Chen, S. Xia, C. Wang, Z. Chen, and G. Wang, “Gbcd: a granular- ball based discretization method for continuous valued attributes,” in 2022 IEEE Conference on Telecommunications, Optics and Computer Science. IEEE, 2022, pp. 1340–1344

    2022

  32. [40]

    A fast granular-ball-based density peaks clustering algorithm for large-scale data,

    D. Cheng, Y . Li, S. Xia, G. Wang, J. Huang, and S. Zhang, “A fast granular-ball-based density peaks clustering algorithm for large-scale data,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 35, no. 12, pp. 17 202–17 215, 2023

    2023

  33. [41]

    Incremental learning based on granular ball rough sets for classifica- tion in dynamic mixed-type decision system,

    Q. Zhang, C. Wu, S. Xia, F. Zhao, M. Gao, Y . Cheng, and G. Wang, “Incremental learning based on granular ball rough sets for classifica- tion in dynamic mixed-type decision system,”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 9319–9332, 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    An efficient spectral clustering algorithm based on granular-ball,

    J. Xie, W. Kong, S. Xia, G. Wang, and X. Gao, “An efficient spectral clustering algorithm based on granular-ball,”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 35, no. 9, pp. 9743–9753, 2023

    2023

  35. [43]

    Multi-label feature se- lection based on rough granular-ball and label distribution,

    W. Qian, F. Xu, J. Qian, W. Shu, and W. Ding, “Multi-label feature se- lection based on rough granular-ball and label distribution,”Information Sciences, vol. 650, p. 119698, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Gbcloud: a robust cloud model for processing multi-dimensional data using granular-ball computing,

    Y . Shi, S. Xia, and Z. Chen, “Gbcloud: a robust cloud model for processing multi-dimensional data using granular-ball computing,” in Proceedings of the 2023 8th International Conference on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  37. [45]

    Geaf: A label noise filtering method based on adaptive partitioning of granular ellipsoids,

    J. Zhang, X. Sun, B. Huang, T. Wang, H. Li, and X. Jia, “Geaf: A label noise filtering method based on adaptive partitioning of granular ellipsoids,”Information Sciences, p. 123324, 2026

    2026

  38. [46]

    A fast granular ellipsoid-based density peaks clustering algorithm for large-scale data,

    S. Liu, S. Li, and F. Yu, “A fast granular ellipsoid-based density peaks clustering algorithm for large-scale data,”AIMS Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 7871, 2026

    2026

  39. [47]

    A granular- ellipsoid generation method suitable for density peak clustering,

    H. Guo, M. Zhuang, X. Sun, B. Huang, and T. Wang, “A granular- ellipsoid generation method suitable for density peak clustering,”Infor- mation Sciences, p. 123328, 2026

    2026

  40. [48]

    Unlock the cognitive generalization of deep reinforcement learning via granular ball representation,

    J. Liu, H. Jianye, Y . Ma, and S. Xia, “Unlock the cognitive generalization of deep reinforcement learning via granular ball representation,” in Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    An adaptive multi-granularity graph representation of image via granular- ball computing,

    D. Dai, F. Chen, S. Xia, L. Yang, G. Wang, G. Wang, and X. Gao, “An adaptive multi-granularity graph representation of image via granular- ball computing,”IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 34, pp. 2986–2999, 2025

    2025

  42. [50]

    Granular-ball representation learning for deep cnn on learning with label noise,

    D. Dai, H. Zhu, S. Xia, and G. Wang, “Granular-ball representation learning for deep cnn on learning with label noise,” inInternational Conference on Neural Information Processing. Springer, 2024, pp. 44–58

    2024

  43. [51]

    Finding time series anomalies using granular-ball vector data description,

    L. Shen, L. Peng, R. Liu, S. Xia, and Y . Liu, “Finding time series anomalies using granular-ball vector data description,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 40, no. 30, 2026, pp. 25 295–25 303

    2026

  44. [52]

    Graph coarsening via supervised granular-ball for scalable graph neural network training,

    S. Xia, X. Ma, Z. Liu, C. Liu, S. Zhao, and G. Wang, “Graph coarsening via supervised granular-ball for scalable graph neural network training,” inProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 39, no. 12, 2025, pp. 12 872–12 880

    2025

  45. [53]

    Gbgc: Efficient and adaptive graph coarsening via granular-ball computing,

    S. Xia, G. Wang, G. Xu, S. Zhao, and G. Wang, “Gbgc: Efficient and adaptive graph coarsening via granular-ball computing,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.19224, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Hac: Hash-grid assisted context for 3d gaussian splatting compression,

    Y . Chen, Q. Wu, W. Lin, M. Harandi, and J. Cai, “Hac: Hash-grid assisted context for 3d gaussian splatting compression,” inProceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2024, pp. 422–438

    2024

  47. [55]

    Contextgs: Compact 3d gaussian splatting with anchor level context model,

    Y . Wang, Z. Li, L. Guo, W. Yang, A. C. Kot, and B. Wen, “Contextgs: Compact 3d gaussian splatting with anchor level context model,”Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 37, pp. 51 532– 51 551, 2024

    2024

  48. [56]

    Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction,

    A. Knapitsch, J. Park, Q.-Y . Zhou, and V . Koltun, “Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction,”ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1–13, 2017

    2017

  49. [57]

    Deep blending for free-viewpoint image-based rendering,

    P. Hedman, J. Philip, T. Price, J.-M. Frahm, G. Drettakis, and G. Bros- tow, “Deep blending for free-viewpoint image-based rendering,”ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1–15, 2018

    2018

  50. [58]

    Bungeenerf: Progressive neural radiance field for extreme multi- scale scene rendering,

    Y . Xiangli, L. Xu, X. Pan, N. Zhao, A. Rao, C. Theobalt, B. Dai, and D. Lin, “Bungeenerf: Progressive neural radiance field for extreme multi- scale scene rendering,” inProceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2022, pp. 106–122

    2022

  51. [59]

    Scope of validity of psnr in im- age/video quality assessment,

    Q. Huynh-Thu and M. Ghanbari, “Scope of validity of psnr in im- age/video quality assessment,”Electronics letters, vol. 44, no. 13, pp. 800–801, 2008

    2008

  52. [60]

    Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,

    Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli, “Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity,”IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 600–612, 2004

    2004

  53. [61]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric,

    R. Zhang, P. Isola, A. A. Efros, E. Shechtman, and O. Wang, “The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2018, pp. 586–595

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.