Temporal retiming, the ability to reconstruct and render dynamic scenes at arbitrary timestamps, is crucial for applications such as slow-motion playback, temporal editing, and post-production. However, most existing 4D Gaussian Splatting (4DGS) methods overfit at discrete frame indices but struggle to represent continuous-time frames, leading to ghosting artifacts when interpolating between timestamps. We identify this limitation as a form of temporal aliasing and propose RetimeGS, a simple yet effective 4DGS representation that explicitly defines the temporal behavior of the 3D Gaussian and mitigates temporal aliasing. To achieve smooth and consistent interpolation, we incorporate optical flow-guided initialization and supervision, triple-rendering supervision, and other targeted strategies. Together, these components enable ghost-free, temporally coherent rendering even under large motions. Experiments on datasets featuring fast motion, non-rigid deformation, and severe occlusions demonstrate that RetimeGS achieves superior quality and coherence over state-of-the-art methods.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Illustration of temporal overfitting to input frames t1 and t2 , causing ghosting at t1.5 in 4D primitive-based methods.
Figure 3: Pipeline Overview. We represent a dynamic scene using a novel 4D representation that combines regularized temporal opacity with smooth spline-based spatial positioning. By leveraging tailored training strategies using RGB images and bidirectional optical flow, our method can reconstruct arbitrary intermediate frames under sparse temporal sampling and large motion.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison. Results on DNA-Rendering Dataset [ 4 ] (w/o GT held-out views, left) and Stage-Capture Dataset (w/ GT held-out views, right). The red boxes show the corresponding zoomed-in views for detailed comparison.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Deform-GS [ 39 ]
28.45
0.867
0.0272
STGS [ 18 ]
25.34
0.825
0.0357
GaussianFlow [ 6 ]
25.91
0.825
0.0339
2D Lifting [ 28 , 18 ]
28.79
0.886
0.0267
Ours
30.08
0.904
0.0225
Table 1: Quantitative comparisons on the Stage-Capture Dataset, focusing on the foreground region. Red and yellow cell colors indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
Figure 5: ( 5(a) ) The texture is distorted when flow-related components are removed. ( 5(b) ) Without triple rendering, the two adjacent primitive groups each capture only part of the content in the input frames they jointly cover: the previous group reconstructs the right texture in the circled region, while the next group reconstructs the left texture.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
w/o flow initialization
29.69
0.899
0.0227
w/o flow supervision
27.24
0.861
0.0282
w/o triple-rendering
27.16
0.849
0.0319
w/o dynamic stretching
28.81
0.886
0.0247
linear trajectory
28.50
0.884
0.0243
Ours
30.08
0.904
0.0225
Table 2: Quantitative ablation on the Stage-Capture Dataset, focusing on the foreground region. Red and yellow cell colors indicate the best and second-best results, respectively.
Figure 6: Ablation on dynamic stretching. The magenta is rendered using static stretched primitives, and the teal is rendered using dynamic primitives (with static background removed).
Figure 7: Ablation on spline trajectory. Without spline trajectories, the error heatmap highlights larger errors along the bear’s edges due to imprecise piecewise linear motion.
Figure 8: Failure case under extremely low capture FPS. Our method struggles to interpolate intermediate frames when the inter-frame motion becomes too large due to low temporal sampling or large motion.
Scenes
Avg.
Method
Bear
Doll
Undress
Open Case
Pass Doll
Pickup Doll
Pack Computer
Stretch
Walk
PSNR ↑
Deform-GS [ 39 ]
29.91
27.21
29.46
29.99
27.87
28.30
29.96
25.81
27.56
28.45
STGS [ 18 ]
22.96
23.49
28.41
29.09
24.07
23.44
28.75
23.42
24.46
25.34
GaussianFlow [ 6 ]
24.53
24.48
28.58
28.87
25.11
24.67
28.71
23.88
24.38
25.91
2D Lifting [ 28 , 18 ]
28.60
26.60
30.23
31.16
27.97
28.37
30.09
27.21
28.82
28.79
Table 3: Per-scene quantitative comparisons on the Stage-Capture Dataset (foreground region). Higher PSNR/SSIM and lower LPIPS are better.
Figure 9: Qualitative comparison on Neural3DV: Scene with fire (rapid opacity changes) and non-stage-capture setting.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Deform-GS [ 39 ]
28.45
0.867
0.0272
STGS [ 18 ]
25.34
0.825
0.0357
GaussianFlow [ 6 ]
25.91
0.825
0.0339
Ex4DGS [ 15 ]
25.95
0.811
0.0379
2D Lifting [ 28 , 18 ]
28.79
0.886
0.0267
Ours
30.08
0.904
0.0225
Table 4: Quantitative results on the Stage-Capture dataset, including the Ex4DGS baseline.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Deform-GS [ 39 ]
31.79
0.952
0.081
STGS [ 18 ]
32.52
0.959
0.079
GaussianFlow [ 6 ]
31.89
0.957
0.082
Ex4DGS [ 15 ]
31.06
0.919
0.094
2D Lifting [ 28 , 18 ]
33.17
0.960
0.080
Ours
33.22
0.959
0.074
Table 5: Quantitative evaluation on the Flame Steak and Flame Salmon scenes from the Neural3DV dataset.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
WAFT [ 36 ]
30.08
0.904
0.0225
SEA-RAFT [ 37 ]
29.73
0.898
0.0253
Table 6: Ablation study on flow supervision: comparison of WAFT [ 36 ] and SEA-RAFT [ 37 ] as optical flow supervision modules.
Method
Training Time (s)
Peak Memory (GB)
STGS [ 18 ]
1406.8
2.47
Ours
3794.3
3.14
Table 7: Comparison of training efficiency and peak GPU memory under a shared budget of 1M primitives.
Recent 4D Gaussian Splatting (4DGS) methods achieve impressive dynamic scene reconstruction but often rely on piecewise linear velocity approximations and short temporal windows. This disjointed modeling leads to severe temporal fragmentation, forcing primitives to be repeatedly eliminated and regenerated to track complex nonlinear dynamics. This makeshift approximation eliminates the long-term temporal identity of objects and causes an inevitable proliferation of Gaussians, hindering scalability to extended video sequences. To address this, we propose TRiGS, a novel 4D representation that utilizes unified, continuous geometric transformations. By integrating SE(3) transformations, hierarchical Bezier residuals, and learnable local anchors, TRiGS models geometrically consistent rigid motions for individual primitives. This continuous formulation preserves temporal identity and effectively mitigates unbounded memory growth. Extensive experiments demonstrate that TRiGS achieves high fidelity rendering on standard benchmarks while uniquely scaling to extended video sequences (e.g., 600 to 1200 frames) without severe memory bottlenecks, significantly outperforming prior works in temporal stability.
Suwoong Yeom, Joonsik Nam, Seunggyu Choi +7
Sogang University · POSTECH · Seoul National University +2
Recent 4D Gaussian Splatting (4DGS) methods often fail under fast motion with large inter-frame displacements, where Gaussian attributes are poorly learned during training, and fast-moving objects are often lost from the reconstruction. In this work, we introduce Spatiotemporal Position Implicit Network for 4DGS, coined SPIN-4DGS, which learns Gaussian attributes from explicitly collected spatiotemporal positions rather than modeling temporal displacements, thereby enabling more faithful splatting under fast motions with large inter-frame displacements. To avoid the heavy memory overhead of explicitly optimizing attributes across all spatiotemporal positions, we instead predict them with a lightweight feed-forward network trained under a rasterization-based reconstruction loss. Consequently, SPIN-4DGS learns shared representations across Gaussians, effectively capturing spatiotemporal consistency and enabling stable high-quality Gaussian splatting even under challenging motions. Across extensive experiments, SPIN-4DGS consistently achieves higher fidelity under large displacements, with clear improvements in PSNR and SSIM on challenging sports scenes from the CMU Panoptic dataset. For example, SPIN-4DGS notably outperforms the strongest baseline, D3DGS, by achieving +1.83 higher PSNR on the Basketball scene.
Seung-gyeom Kim, Areum Kim, Yongjae Yoo +1
Department of Applied Artificial Intelligence, Hanyang University · Hanyang University ERICA
Recent progress in 4D Gaussian Splatting (4DGS) has achieved impressive dynamic scene reconstruction results. While these methods demonstrate remarkable performance, the specific factors behind their gains remain underexplored, making a systematic understanding of the underlying principles challenging. In this paper, we perform a comprehensive analysis of these hidden factors to provide a clearer perspective on the 4DGS framework. We first establish a controlled baseline, FreeTimeGS_ours, by formalizing and reproducing the heuristics of the state-of-the-art FreeTimeGS. Using this framework, we examine 4DGS along its fundamental axes and identify practical secrets, including the emergent temporal partitioning driven by Gaussian durations and the decoupling between photometric fidelity and motion behavior. Based on these insights, we propose FreeTimeGS++, a principled method that employs gated marginalization, UFM-guided initialization, and color correction to improve stability and reproducibility. Our approach yields reproducible results with reduced run-to-run variance.