Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 32 references

Trick-GS: A Balanced Bag of Tricks for Efficient Gaussian Splatting

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Trick-GS shows that a balanced combination of progressive training, learned pruning, and an accelerated rasterizer yields up to 2× faster training, 40× smaller models, and 2× faster rendering than vanilla Gaussian Splatting at comparable…

desk verdict Credible efficiency gains, but the 'comparable accuracy' claim is contradicted by the paper's own tables on two of three datasets. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14534 v1 pith:3ZG43TP6 submitted 2025-01-24 cs.CV

Anil Armagan , Albert Saà-Garriga , Bruno Manganelli , Mateusz Nowak , Mehmet Kerim Yucel This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords 3DGaussiansplattingreconstructionmodelcompressionpruningsphericalharmonicsprogressivetrainingefficientrenderingon-devicelearning
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

Trick-GS argues that the way to make 3D Gaussian Splatting practical on constrained devices is not a new representation but a carefully chosen combination of existing training and pruning techniques. The paper bundles eight mechanisms—progressive training via blurring, downsampling, and Gaussian-scale control; learned masks that prune low-impact Gaussians and unused spherical-harmonic bands; significance-based pruning; and an accelerated rasterizer with a fused SSIM path—into one pipeline. On Mip-NeRF 360, Tanks&Temples, and Deep Blending, the authors report up to 2× faster training, roughly 40× smaller disk models (about 20× for the balanced default), and about 2× faster rendering than vanilla 3DGS, with quality they describe as comparable. If the recipe transfers, compact on-device Gaussian Splatting becomes a question of training schedule and pruning policy.

What carries the argument

The machinery is a coordinated set of learned binary masks, significance scores, and coarse-to-fine schedules layered onto vanilla 3DGS. Gaussian masking (Eq. 3) learns a per-Gaussian hard mask that suppresses low-scale, low-opacity primitives at densification and every 500 iterations afterward; SH masking (Eq. 5) learns per-band masks that zero out unused view-dependent color coefficients; and a significance score (Eq. 4) counts ray hits weighted by opacity and normalized volume, pruning a decaying percentile of Gaussians six times during training. Progressive schedules anneal blur kernel size, image resolution, and the Gaussian footprint—the added covariance scale $s$—from coarse to fine, which regularizes early optimization and keeps the Gaussian count low. These run on an accelerated training framework that splits higher SH-band updates from diffuse color and computes SSIM with separable Gaussian kernels.

What would settle it

Evaluate the released Trick-GS checkpoints on Tanks&Temples: a consistent LPIPS gap above 0.03 relative to vanilla 3DGS would contradict the 'comparable accuracy' claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a balanced bag of existing tricks delivers most of the efficiency of bespoke compact-GS methods without changing the underlying representation. Trick-GS keeps the vanilla 3DGS rasterizer and Gaussian primitives, but trains them with progressive schedules (blur kernel annealed from 9×9, resolution raised from 12.5% to full, Gaussian footprint scale started large), learns binary masks for Gaussians and per-band SH coefficients, prunes Gaussians by a ray-hit significance score normalized by volume, and updates higher SH bands less frequently during optimization. The result, measured on the standard three benchmarks, is a default model that trains in roughly 10–15 minutes, stores 19–39 MB, and renders at 222–298 FPS, versus 23–25 minutes, 411–734 MB, and 121–172 FPS for vanilla 3DGS; a 'small' variant trades a little accuracy for roughly half the storage again and faster training. The paper also claims the configuration is tunable, with late densification and progressive scaling swapped to prefer accuracy over compactness.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains assume that the trick set and every hyperparameter, tuned on the single 'bicycle' scene of Mip-NeRF 360, transfer to other scenes and datasets without re-tuning.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Trick-GS's default model cuts disk storage to roughly 20 MB per scene on the tested datasets, down from 431–770 MB for vanilla 3DGS, making scenes shippable to phones.
  • Training time drops to about 10–15 minutes per scene on an RTX 3090, 1.4–2× faster than vanilla 3DGS, so scene fitting becomes feasible on device.
  • Rendering speed roughly doubles (FPS rises to 222–298 for the default model and up to 342 for the small variant, from 121–172 for vanilla 3DGS).
  • The model keeps peak and final Gaussian counts far below the comparison methods—about 4.5× fewer than Mini-Splatting and 2× fewer than Compact-GS—reducing peak memory during training.
  • The recipe is tunable: the 'small' variant trades a small accuracy drop for roughly half the storage again (down to 10–19 MB) and faster training.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Since the trick set and hyperparameters were tuned on a single scene, a natural extension is automatic per-scene selection of schedules; if transfer holds, such a search should recover or improve the averages, but the paper leaves this to future work.
  • The recipe's representation-agnostic structure implies anchor-based, tri-plane, or octree Gaussian variants could see the same efficiency gains by adopting the same progressive schedules and masks—a cross-family hypothesis the paper does not test.
  • The paper's own post-processing test reaches 6–12 MB at a 0.33 dB PSNR cost; combining external quantization or entropy coding with the learned masks would likely close that gap, a direction the paper flags but does not develop.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. Trick-GS combines existing Gaussian-splatting efficiency techniques—progressive training with blurring, resolution changes, and Gaussian scale control, significance-based pruning, learned Gaussian and SH-band masking, and an accelerated rasterizer—into a single recipe. The paper evaluates the method on 15 scenes from Mip-NeRF 360, Tanks&Temples, and Deep Blending, reporting up to 2x faster training, 40x smaller storage, and 2x faster rendering relative to vanilla 3DGS, with the abstract claiming comparable accuracy. The ablation in Section IV-D, however, is performed on a single scene (bicycle), and all hyperparameters are selected from that scene. The central tension is that the reported numbers in Tables I and II show the default Trick-GS model is worse than the retrained 3DGS baseline on all three accuracy metrics on two of the three datasets, despite the accuracy-neutrality claims in the abstract and Section IV-C.

Significance. If the efficiency gains hold up (roughly 1.4-2.1x training speedup, 20-40x storage reduction, and 1.6-2.2x FPS improvement), the paper demonstrates a practical, low-effort recipe for making Gaussian splatting more deployable on constrained devices. The use of retrained baselines on the same system for most comparisons is a methodological strength, and the per-component ablation, while limited to one scene, gives useful insight into which tricks matter. However, the headline accuracy claim is not supported by the paper's own tables: the default model loses on PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS on Mip-NeRF 360 and Tanks&Temples relative to retrained 3DGS, with LPIPS degradations around 21% and 17%. The contribution is therefore better characterized as a trade-off recipe than as an accuracy-preserving speedup, and the manuscript needs substantial revision of its claims and validation before the central promise is credible.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and Section IV-C, Tables I-II] The abstract's claim of comparable accuracy and Section IV-C's statement that Trick-GS is not sacrificing on the accuracy are contradicted by the authors' own retrained 3DGS baseline. On Mip-NeRF 360, Trick-GS scores PSNR 27.16 vs. 27.56, SSIM 0.802 vs. 0.818, and LPIPS 0.245 vs. 0.202; on Tanks&Temples it scores PSNR 23.48 vs. 23.67, SSIM 0.830 vs. 0.845, and LPIPS 0.209 vs. 0.178. The relative LPIPS degradations are approximately 21% and 17%, respectively. Only on Deep Blending are the metrics essentially tied. Since accuracy is a load-bearing component of the central claim, the paper must either weaken the claims to acknowledge a systematic quality trade-off on these datasets or provide statistical evidence (per-scene results, confidence intervals, or a pre-specified equivalence margin) showing that the differences are within a tolerable threshold.
  2. [Section IV-D, Table III] All trick inclusion decisions and hyperparameters (mask loss weights, thresholds, blur and resolution schedules, pruning rates, densification window) were selected using the single bicycle scene, and the same configuration is then used to produce the headline averages over 15 scenes. There is no evidence that this configuration transfers to other scenes without per-scene adjustment. Given the large number of free parameters, the reported averages may be optimistically biased by selection on one scene. The authors should validate the configuration on at least a few held-out scenes or report per-scene results for all methods; as it stands, the generality of the recipe is not established.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-B-2, Eq. (4)] The indicator notation in Eq. (4) is ambiguous: 1(G(Xj), ri) is not a standard form for ray ri hitting Gaussian j and should be written as an explicit indicator with a defined event, such as an indicator of the event that Gaussian j is hit by ray ri.
  2. [Section III-B-4-c] The heading 'Progressive training by scales of Gaussians' is misleading: the text describes controlling the low-pass filter and minimum projected area via the covariance regularization parameter s, not directly training with multiple Gaussian scales. Please align the heading with the actual mechanism.
  3. [Tables I and II] Training time and FPS are reported as point estimates without any measure of spread. Since FPS is said to be measured over 50 runs, reporting standard deviations or per-scene ranges would make the efficiency comparisons more informative.
  4. [Section IV-B] The term 'ABE split' is introduced without definition or reference; please explain what ABE stands for and how the split procedure works, or cite the source explicitly.
  5. [Throughout] There are several typos and grammatical issues, e.g., 'Significancy score' in Section IV-D and 'the advantage of our is method being easily tunable' in the Conclusion. A careful proofread is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: efficiency gains are externally benchmarked; single-scene recipe selection and abstract accuracy overstatement are generalization/correctness concerns, not definitional loops.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and benchmarked externally. The efficiency numbers (training time, storage, FPS) are measured directly against retrained 3DGS, Compact-GS, and Mini-Splatting on standard datasets, so they are not derived from assumptions that embed the result. The tricks are adopted from cited prior works with explicit equations (masking Eqs. 3 and 5, significance Eq. 4, resolution schedule Eq. 6, loss Eq. 7), and none of these equations defines the target efficiency metric in terms of itself. The only self-citation ([3]) is an application-motivation reference in the introduction and carries no load. The choice of tricks and hyperparameters was validated on the 'bicycle' scene (Tab. III), which creates a selection-bias/external-validity risk, but this is not circularity because the final numbers are not statistically forced by a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction; the same configuration is then applied to held-out scenes and datasets. Separately, the abstract's 'comparable accuracy' claim is undercut by the authors' own Table I on Mip-NeRF 360 and Tanks&Temples, where the default Trick-GS model is worse than retrained 3DGS on every reported accuracy metric, but that is an internal consistency/correctness issue rather than circular reasoning.

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

The paper introduces no new physical or representational entities; the mask parameters and SH masks are adopted from prior work. The only new objects are hyperparameter schedules, which are tracked in free_parameters.

free parameters (6)
  • mask loss weights λm and λsh = 0.05
    Chosen by hand; these weights in Eq. 7 balance reconstruction loss against mask regularization, directly influencing how many Gaussians and SH bands are pruned.
  • mask thresholds εm and εsh = εm=0.05, εsh=0.1
    Chosen by hand; used in Eqs. 3 and 5 to convert soft mask values into hard cuts, determining what fraction of primitives survive.
  • initial blur kernel size and σ, decay schedule = 9x9, σ=2.4, decay every 100 iterations until 19500
    Chosen by hand; controls the strength of progressive blurring, which the paper says regularizes training and reduces floating artifacts.
  • initial downsampling factor and resolution schedule = 0.125 scale (8x), logarithmic rise until iteration 19500
    Chosen by hand; Figure 5 shows the accuracy vs. training-time trade-off depends on this starting scale, so it is effectively fitted to the benchmark.
  • significance pruning initial rate and decay = initial 60%, decay factor 0.7, 6 rounds until iteration 22K
    Chosen by hand; directly determines how many Gaussians are removed and therefore the final model size vs. accuracy point.
  • late densification window = iterations 20K-20.5K, every 100 iterations
    Chosen by hand; re-introduces Gaussians after pruning to recover false positives, affecting final Gaussian count and accuracy.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The vanilla 3DGS implementation [4] behaves as described and is a valid baseline for all comparisons.
    All efficiency and accuracy numbers are relative to an implementation of [4] that the authors retrained; the paper assumes this baseline is standard and correctly configured.
  • domain assumption The SfM point cloud initialization provided by the 3DGS authors is used for every scene.
    The progressive training scheme is designed to compensate for this specific initialization; results may differ with other initializations.
  • domain assumption PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS are the relevant quality metrics, and 'comparable accuracy' is judged against them.
    The paper claims accuracy comparable to vanilla GS while being worse on PSNR and SSIM on two of three datasets and notably worse on LPIPS; the claim rests on accepting these standard metrics and a loose definition of comparable.
  • ad hoc to paper The hyperparameters and trick choices selected on the bicycle scene transfer to all other scenes.
    Table III and Section IV-B fix the recipe on a single scene; the headline results assume this configuration works across the 15 test scenes without further tuning.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trick-GS: A Balanced Bag of Tricks for Efficient Gaussian Splatting." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3ZG43TP6

@misc{pith2026250114534,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trick-GS: A Balanced Bag of Tricks for Efficient Gaussian Splatting},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3ZG43TP6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14534}
}
read the original abstract

Gaussian splatting (GS) for 3D reconstruction has become quite popular due to their fast training, inference speeds and high quality reconstruction. However, GS-based reconstructions generally consist of millions of Gaussians, which makes them hard to use on computationally constrained devices such as smartphones. In this paper, we first propose a principled analysis of advances in efficient GS methods. Then, we propose Trick-GS, which is a careful combination of several strategies including (1) progressive training with resolution, noise and Gaussian scales, (2) learning to prune and mask primitives and SH bands by their significance, and (3) accelerated GS training framework. Trick-GS takes a large step towards resource-constrained GS, where faster run-time, smaller and faster-convergence of models is of paramount concern. Our results on three datasets show that Trick-GS achieves up to 2x faster training, 40x smaller disk size and 2x faster rendering speed compared to vanilla GS, while having comparable accuracy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14534 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Qualitative comparison of the methods. Our method can recover more consistent text and background (top), or better structure metallic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Number of Gaussians (#G) during training (on MipNeRF 360 - bicycle scene) for all methods, number of masked Gaussians (#Masked￾G) and number of Gaussians with a masked SH band for our method. Our method performs a balanced reconstruction in terms of training efficiency by not letting the number of Gaussians increase drastically as other methods during training, which is a desirable property for end devices with low … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Impact of progressive training strategies on challenging [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visual results (a) from vanilla 3DGS (first row) and a model trained with progressive resolution based strategy (second row) starting with scale 0.125. We use ‘garden‘ from MipNeRF360 dataset and zoom into the improvements (b) & (c) for clarity. the maximum GPU consump…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: PSNR and training time evaluations w.r.t. the lowest scale used to start a progressive resolution-based training. original resolution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Vision-only robot navigation in a neural radiance world,

    Michal Adamkiewicz, Timothy Chen, Adam Caccavale, Rachel Gardner, Preston Culbertson, Jeannette Bohg, and Mac Schwager, “Vision-only robot navigation in a neural radiance world,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 4606–4613, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Instant-3d: Instant neural radiance field training towards on-device ar/vr 3d reconstruction,

    Sixu Li, Chaojian Li, Wenbo Zhu, Boyang Yu, Yang Zhao, Cheng Wan, Haoran You, Huihong Shi, and Yingyan Lin, “Instant-3d: Instant neural radiance field training towards on-device ar/vr 3d reconstruction,” in Proceedings of the 50th Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture, 2023, pp. 1–13

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Finding waldo: Towards efficient exploration of nerf scene spaces,

    Evangelos Skartados, Mehmet Kerim Yucel, Bruno Manganelli, Anasta- sios Drosou, and Albert Sa `a-Garriga, “Finding waldo: Towards efficient exploration of nerf scene spaces,” in Proceedings of the 15th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference , 2024, pp. 155–165

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering,

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimk ¨uhler, and George Drettakis, “3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering,” ACM Transactions on Graphics , vol. 42, no. 4, July 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encod- ing,

    Thomas M ¨uller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexander Keller, “Instant neural graphics primitives with a multiresolution hash encod- ing,” ACM Transactions on Graphics , vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2022

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    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,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 21719–21728

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    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,” in In Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision , 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    EAGLES: Efficient accelerated 3d gaussians with lightweight encodings,

    Sharath Girish, Kamal Gupta, and Abhinav Shrivastava, “EAGLES: Efficient accelerated 3d gaussians with lightweight encodings,” in In Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision , 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Spec-gaussian: Anisotropic view-dependent appearance for 3d gaussian splatting,

    Ziyi Yang, Xinyu Gao, Yangtian Sun, Yihua Huang, Xiaoyang Lyu, Wen Zhou, Shaohui Jiao, Xiaojuan Qi, and Xiaogang Jin, “Spec-gaussian: Anisotropic view-dependent appearance for 3d gaussian splatting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.15870, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    End-to-end rate-distortion optimized 3d gaussian representation,

    Henan Wang, Hanxin Zhu, Tianyu He, Runsen Feng, Jiajun Deng, Jiang Bian, and Zhibo Chen, “End-to-end rate-distortion optimized 3d gaussian representation,” in In Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    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,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17245 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    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,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.10219 , 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Compact 3d scene representation via self-organizing gaussian grids,

    Wieland Morgenstern, Florian Barthel, Anna Hilsmann, and Peter Eisert, “Compact 3d scene representation via self-organizing gaussian grids,” in In Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision , 2024

    2024

  6. [14]

    Reducing the memory footprint of 3d gaussian splatting,

    Panagiotis Papantonakis, Georgios Kopanas, Bernhard Kerbl, Alexandre Lanvin, and George Drettakis, “Reducing the memory footprint of 3d gaussian splatting,” Proceedings of the ACM on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 1–17, May 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Trimming the fat: Efficient compression of 3d gaussian splats through pruning,

    Muhammad Salman Ali, Maryam Qamar, Sung-Ho Bae, and Enzo Tartaglione, “Trimming the fat: Efficient compression of 3d gaussian splats through pruning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.18214 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Compressed 3D gaussian splatting for accelerated novel view synthe- sis,

    Simon Niedermayr, Josef Stumpfegger, and R ¨udiger Westermann, “Compressed 3D gaussian splatting for accelerated novel view synthe- sis,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 10349–10358

    2024

  9. [17]

    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,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 20654–20664

    2024

  10. [18]

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

    Yihang Chen, Qianyi Wu, Jianfei Cai, Mehrtash Harandi, and Weiyao Lin, “Hac: Hash-grid assisted context for 3d gaussian splatting compres- sion,” in In Proceedings of European Conference on Computer Vision , 2024

    2024

  11. [19]

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

    Yufei Wang, Zhihao Li, Lanqing Guo, Wenhan Yang, Alex C Kot, and Bihan Wen, “Contextgs: Compact 3d gaussian splatting with anchor level context model,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.20721 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    CompGS: Efficient 3d scene representation via compressed gaussian splatting,

    Xiangrui Liu, Xinju Wu, Pingping Zhang, Shiqi Wang, Zhu Li, and Sam Kwong, “CompGS: Efficient 3d scene representation via compressed gaussian splatting,” in ACM Multimedia 2024 , 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Octree-gs: Towards consistent real-time rendering with lod-structured 3d gaussians,

    Kerui Ren, Lihan Jiang, Tao Lu, Mulin Yu, Linning Xu, Zhangkai Ni, and Bo Dai, “Octree-gs: Towards consistent real-time rendering with lod-structured 3d gaussians,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17898 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Implicit gaussian splatting with efficient multi-level tri-plane representation,

    Minye Wu and Tinne Tuytelaars, “Implicit gaussian splatting with efficient multi-level tri-plane representation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.10041, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Taming 3dgs: High-quality radiance fields with limited resources,

    Saswat Subhajyoti Mallick, Rahul Goel, Bernhard Kerbl, Francisco Vi- cente Carrasco, Markus Steinberger, and Fernando De La Torre, “Taming 3dgs: High-quality radiance fields with limited resources,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15643, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Distwar: Fast differen- tiable rendering on raster-based rendering pipelines,

    Sankeerth Durvasula, Adrian Zhao, Fan Chen, Ruofan Liang, Pawan Ku- mar Sanjaya, and Nandita Vijaykumar, “Distwar: Fast differen- tiable rendering on raster-based rendering pipelines,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05345, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Identifying unnec- essary 3d gaussians using clustering for fast rendering of 3d gaussian splatting,

    Joongho Jo, Hyeongwon Kim, and Jongsun Park, “Identifying unnec- essary 3d gaussians using clustering for fast rendering of 3d gaussian splatting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.13827 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Gscore: Efficient radiance field rendering via architectural support for 3d gaussian splatting,

    Junseo Lee, Seokwon Lee, Jungi Lee, Junyong Park, and Jaewoong Sim, “Gscore: Efficient radiance field rendering via architectural support for 3d gaussian splatting,” in Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and ...

    2024

  19. [27]

    Ewa volume splatting,

    Matthias Zwicker, Hanspeter Pfister, Jeroen Van Baar, and Markus Gross, “Ewa volume splatting,” in Proceedings Visualization. IEEE, 2001, pp. 29–538

    2001

  20. [28]

    Relaxing accurate initialization constraint for 3d gaussian splatting,

    Jaewoo Jung, Jisang Han, Honggyu An, Jiwon Kang, Seonghoon Park, and Seungryong Kim, “Relaxing accurate initialization constraint for 3d gaussian splatting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.09413 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

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

    Jonathan T Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman, “Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2022, pp. 5470–5479

    2022

  22. [30]

    Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction,

    Arno Knapitsch, Jaesik Park, Qian-Yi Zhou, and Vladlen Koltun, “Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction,” ACM Transactions on Graphics, vol. 36, no. 4, 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Deep blending for free-viewpoint image-based rendering,

    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, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1–15, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric,

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A Efros, Eli Shechtman, and Oliver Wang, “The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2018, pp. 586–595

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.