2D Gaussian Splatting has emerged as a novel image representation technique that can support efficient rendering on low-end devices. However, scaling to high-resolution images requires optimizing and storing millions of unstructured Gaussian primitives independently, leading to slow convergence and redundant parameters. To address this, we propose Structured Gaussian Image (SGI), a compact and efficient framework for representing high-resolution images. SGI decomposes a complex image into multi-scale local spaces defined by a set of seeds. Each seed corresponds to a spatially coherent region and, together with lightweight multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs), generates structured implicit 2D neural Gaussians. This seed-based formulation imposes structural regularity on otherwise unstructured Gaussian primitives, which facilitates entropy-based compression at the seed level to reduce the total storage. However, optimizing seed parameters directly on high-resolution images is a challenging and non-trivial task. Therefore, we designed a multi-scale fitting strategy that refines the seed representation in a coarse-to-fine manner, substantially accelerating convergence. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations demonstrate that SGI achieves up to 7.5x compression over prior non-quantized 2D Gaussian methods and 1.6x over quantized ones, while also delivering 1.6x and 6.5x faster optimization, respectively, without degrading, and often improving, image fidelity. Code is available at https://github.com/zx-pan/SGI.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Image representation results on the FGF2 [ 28 ] and ICB [ 35 ] datasets. The x-axis (log scale) denotes optimization time in minutes, and the y-axis shows PSNR (dB). Each point represents a specific model configuration, with the area of the circle indicating its storage size. For GaussianImage and our SGI, we plot performance curves obtained by varying the number of Gaussian primitives. Our SGI consistently achieves a favorable trade-off between fidelity, compactness, and optimization time.
Figure 2: The overall pipeline of SGI. We first introduce (a) seed-based 2D neural Gaussians , where each seed predicts a group of 2D Gaussian primitives via two shared MLPs for decoding color and covariance. To accelerate optimization, we adopt a (b) multi-scale fitting strategy that progressively refines the representation from coarse to fine using a Gaussian pyramid. Finally, we leverage (c) neural entropy coding to further compress the explicit seed attributes for compact representation.
Method
FGF2
ICB
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Opt. Time ↓
Size ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Opt. Time ↓
Size ↓
SIREN [ 41 ] (NeurIPS’20)
22.05
0.8020
0.4831
649.71
15.79
27.62
0.8600
0.3817
363.34
15.79
I-NGP [ 33 ] (TOG’22)
28.55
0.9592
0.1043
72.32
21.07
33.09
0.9532
0.1176
48.11
21.07
HAC [ 14 ] (ECCV’24)
25.15
0.9226
0.1767
261.69
16.78
34.47
0.9801
0.0688
270.57
13.52
GaussianImage [ 54 ] (ECCV’24)
27.30
0.9457
0.1342
322.17
23.37
31.09
0.9330
0.1462
282.61
23.37
Our SGI (low-rate)
31.24
0.9863
0.0731
48.43
16.33
35.27
0.9853
0.0575
44.75
12.30
Table 1: Quantitative results on FGF2 and ICB. Optimization time is in minutes, and model size is in megabytes (MB). To fit INR-based methods (SIREN and I-NGP) on these large-scale datasets under limited GPU memory, we adopt a patch-based training strategy that loads randomly sampled coordinate and pixel batches from CPU to GPU on the fly. Our SGI is evaluated in two settings: low-rate (3.5M Gaussians) and high-rate (10M Gaussians), both demonstrating strong trade-offs between fidelity, compactness, and optimization efficiency. Darker blue and darker red highlights indicate the best-performing method within the low-rate and high-rate groups, respectively, in each metric. Reported numbers are averaged per image across the dataset.
Figure 3: Visual comparisons on the FGF2 and ICB (w/ zoom-in cases and error maps). Qualitative results on representative examples from FGF2 (top) and ICB (bottom), comparing SGI with I-NGP [ 33 ] , Scaffold-GS [ 30 ] , LIG [ 57 ] , and GaussianImage [ 54 ] . Zoom-in regions highlight perceptual differences. In the third row of each block, we visualize the per-pixel reconstruction error using heatmaps, where warmer colors (e.g., yellow) indicate higher deviation from the ground truth. PSNR (dB) and storage size (MB) for each method are shown below the visualizations.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Opt. Time ↓
Size ↓
SIREN [ 41 ] (NeurIPS’20)
28.09
0.8843
0.3654
983.48
15.79
I-NGP [ 33 ] (TOG’22)
35.57
0.9763
0.0518
129.96
21.07
GaussianImage [ 54 ] (ECCV’24)
25.75
0.6404
0.4006
407.70
23.37
Our SGI (low-rate)
33.96
0.9743
0.1196
103.43
10.05
3DGS [ 27 ] (TOG’23)
38.51
0.9957
0.0192
723.43
787.73
LIG [ 57 ] (AAAI’25)
34.33
0.9714
0.1386
106.82
106.81
Table 2: Quantitative results on STimage. Optimization time is in minutes, and model size is in megabytes (MB). To fit INR-based methods (SIREN and I-NGP) on these large-scale datasets under limited GPU memory, we adopt a patch-based training strategy that loads randomly sampled coordinate and pixel batches from CPU to GPU on the fly. Our SGI is evaluated in two settings: low-rate (3.5M Gaussians) and high-rate (10M Gaussians), both demonstrating strong trade-offs between fidelity, compactness, and optimization efficiency. Darker blue and darker red highlights indicate the best-performing method within the low-rate and high-rate groups, respectively, in each metric. Reported numbers are averaged per image across the dataset.
K
FGF2
ICB
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Opt. Time (Min) ↓
Size (MB) ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Opt. Time (Min) ↓
Size (MB) ↓
5
31.29
0.9861
0.0698
44.27
18.48
35.03
0.9841
0.0626
44.70
13.64
10
31.24
0.9863
0.0731
48.43
16.33
35.27
0.9853
0.0575
44.75
12.30
15
30.61
0.9836
0.0828
55.33
15.32
34.88
0.9842
0.0599
50.60
11.48
20
30.62
0.9834
0.0809
56.02
14.83
34.57
0.9824
0.0668
53.37
10.87
Table 3: Ablation studies on # of Gaussians K in each seed.
λ
FGF2
ICB
PSNR ↑
Size (MB) ↓
PSNR ↑
Size (MB) ↓
0
32.36
104.08
36.13
102.35
0.0005
31.30
18.93
35.48
14.90
0.001
31.24
16.33
35.27
12.30
0.003
30.21
11.93
33.51
8.34
Table 4: Ablation studies on λ in L .
M
FGF2
ICB
PSNR ↑
Opt. Time (Min) ↓
PSNR ↑
Opt. Time (Min) ↓
1
30.58
71.59
35.02
70.63
2
30.60
55.96
35.06
49.90
3
31.24
48.43
35.27
44.75
4
30.56
42.27
33.78
37.67
Table 5: Ablation studies on multi-scale fitting.
Number of Gaussians
xa
fa
{so,sa}
δ
H
MLPs
Total Size
3.5e6
0.9995
7.8689
1.5427
5.7646
0.0293
0.1273
16.3324
7.0e6
1.8360
15.5719
2.4960
11.0664
0.0292
0.1273
31.1268
1.0e7
2.4442
20.5720
3.3549
15.2157
0.0298
0.1273
41.7439
Table 6: The storage size (MB) of each component of our method evaluated on the FGF2 dataset.
Figure 4: Visual comparison with traditional image codec method JPEG on the ICB dataset at low Bpp. We report the bit per pixel (bpp) and PSNR (dB) for each method below the visualizations.
Figure 5: Rate-distortion curves of our approach and different compression baselines on ICB dataset in PSNR.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Component
Learning rate
Seed position xa
0
Offsets δ
0.01
Seed feature fa
0.0075
Scaling {so,sa}
0.007
MLPc
0.008
MLPΣ
0.004
Appendix
Table A1 : Details of the learning rates in SGI.
Method
×2
×4
×8
Bilinear interpolation
28.40
27.24
26.86
SGI
28.88
27.58
27.17
Appendix
Table A2 : Unsupervised super-resolution performance on a DIV2K sample. Quantitative results are measured in PSNR (dB).
Method
PSNR (dB) ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Opt. Time ↓
Size ↓
SIREN (NeurIPS’20)
24.71
0.6432
0.5019
28.37
0.45
GaussianImage (ECCV’24)
35.22
0.9327
0.1469
21.91
3.07
LIG (AAAI’25)
44.87
0.9904
0.0113
9.97
15.26
Our SGI (low-rate)
28.69
0.8206
0.3163
3.31
0.33
Our SGI (med-rate)
37.72
0.9643
0.0778
6.80
1.82
Our SGI (high-rate)
44.03
0.9872
0.0298
15.64
5.40
Appendix
Table A3 : Comparisons on DIV2K. Optimization time is in minutes, and model size is in MB. Numbers are averaged per image.
Figure A1 : Visual comparisons on STimage (w/ zoom-in cases and error maps). Zoom-in regions highlight perceptual differences. The third row shows per-pixel reconstruction error heatmaps, where warmer colors (e.g., yellow) indicate larger deviations from the ground truth. PSNR (dB) and storage size (MB) for each method are shown below the visualizations.
3D Gaussian Splat (3DGS) enables high-fidelity, real-time novel view synthesis by representing scenes with large sets of anisotropic primitives, but often requires millions of Splats, incurring significant storage and transmission costs. Most existing compression methods rely on GPU-intensive post-training optimization with calibrated images, limiting practical deployment. We introduce NanoGS, a training-free and lightweight framework for Gaussian Splat simplification. Instead of relying on image-based rendering supervision, NanoGS formulates simplification as local pairwise merging over a sparse spatial graph. The method approximates a pair of Gaussians with a single primitive using mass preserved moment matching and evaluates merge quality through a principled merge cost between the original mixture and its approximation. By restricting merge candidates to local neighborhoods and selecting compatible pairs efficiently, NanoGS produces compact Gaussian representations while preserving scene structure and appearance. NanoGS operates directly on existing Gaussian Splat models, runs efficiently on CPU, and preserves the standard 3DGS parameterization, enabling seamless integration with existing rendering pipelines. Experiments demonstrate that NanoGS substantially reduces primitive count while maintaining high rendering fidelity, providing an efficient and practical solution for Gaussian Splat simplification. Our project website is available at https://saliteta.github.io/NanoGS/.
Butian Xiong, Rong Liu, Tiantian Zhou +3
USC Institute for Creative Technologies · Texas A&M University
2D Gaussian Splatting is an attractive direction for image representation due to its explicit formulation, fast rasterization, and favorable decoding efficiency. The representation quality of this paradigm depends on the proper allocation of Gaussian capacity to the demanding regions. However, existing methods fail to allocate Gaussian capacity efficiently during optimization: under-reconstructed content is often refined in a fragmented pixel-wise manner, while neighboring optimized Gaussians with similar attributes are redundantly retained. This inefficiency motivates the need for a density control framework that jointly addresses insufficient allocation in under-reconstructed regions and redundant allocation in over-reconstructed regions. Our key insight is that this framework should exploit two complementary forms of locality: the local continuity of reconstruction errors in image space for improved Gaussian allocation, and the local similarity of neighboring Gaussians in Gaussian space for redundant elimination. Based on this insight, we propose Locality-Aware Density Control (LocoADC), a plug-and-play framework that improves Gaussian capacity utilization through Region-wise Gaussian Densification (RGD) and Similarity-Driven Gaussian Merging (SDGM) strategies, together with a local color consistency constraint for more reliable merging. Extensive experiments on diverse datasets show that LocoADC consistently improves multiple baselines by enabling more effective local Gaussian allocation, including a 2.93 dB PSNR gain over GI on the CLIC dataset under the same 30k Gaussian budget. Code is available at: https://github.com/ChenJiaCong-1005/LocoADC.
Jiacong Chen, Qingyu Mao, Xiandong Meng +5
Shenzhen University Shenzhen, China · Pengcheng Laboratory Shenzhen, China · Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen) Shenzhen, China
Gaussian-based image representations effectively model image content using compact parametric primitives while preserving high visual fidelity, yet storing a large number of floating-point parameters per primitive degrades rate-distortion efficiency at higher fidelity targets. To improve the rate-distortion performance in Gaussian representation, we present our Cluster-Guided Vector Quantization (CGVQ), a Gaussian primitive based image compression method. Our key idea is to partition Gaussian parameters further into homogeneous groups prior to quantization, enabling higher compression efficiency and accurate parameter reconstruction. In practice, our extensive experiments show that CGVQ decreases the bpp by 20% with respect to our baseline, while maintaining on-par visual quality
Runze Cheng, Yicheng Zhan, Josef Spjut +1
University College London · London, UK · NVIDIA +1