Recent advancements in Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) have introduced various modifications to the original kernel, resulting in significant performance improvements. However, many of these kernel changes are incompatible with existing datasets optimized for the original Gaussian kernel, presenting a challenge for widespread adoption. In this work, we address this challenge by proposing an alternative kernel that maintains compatibility with existing datasets while improving computational efficiency. Specifically, we replace the original exponential kernel with a polynomial approximation combined with a ReLU function. This modification allows for more aggressive culling of Gaussians, leading to enhanced performance across different 3DGS implementations. Our results show a notable performance improvement of 4 to 15% with negligible impact on image quality. We also provide a detailed mathematical analysis of the new kernel and discuss its potential benefits for 3DGS implementations on NPU hardware.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Different kernel functions for Gaussian Splatting depending on the quadric x . g(x) is the usual exponential function and fN(x) are polynomial approximations of order N approximated with gradient descent on the L1 loss in comparison to g(x) . The plot shows exactly the relevant range of the kernel function for x∼[0,−2ln(2551)] .
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
g(x)
f1(x)
f2′(x)
f3(x)
g(x)
f1(x)
f2′(x)
f3(x)
g(x)
f1(x)
f2′(x)
f3(x)
bicycle
25.06
24.47
24.77
25.05
0.749
0.734
0.742
0.749
0.243
0.249
0.244
0.242
bonsai
32.43
30.89
31.58
32.41
0.947
0.932
0.940
0.947
0.180
0.191
0.183
0.178
counter
29.10
28.28
28.65
29.07
0.916
0.900
0.907
0.915
0.182
0.191
0.186
0.182
drjohnson
29.43
29.12
29.31
29.44
0.906
0.898
0.902
0.906
0.235
0.238
0.235
0.234
flowers
21.41
20.97
21.19
21.38
0.586
0.574
0.581
0.586
0.362
0.360
0.358
0.360
Table 1: We compare the quality of the different kernels using the quality metrics PSNR, SSIM and LPIPS. For LPIPS lower is better, for the other two higher is better. The higher the order of the polynomial, the better the quality approaches that of g(x) , or even surpases it for f3(x) .
Figure 2: Sample render cut-outs of the test dataset taken from some of the test scenes, rendered using the different kernels. In most cases, the different kernels are indistinguishable. Only scenes with white backgrounds (3rd and 4th row) show noticeable artifacts for f1(x) and f2(x) that we discuss in section 5.2 .
Baseline
gsplat
Faster-GS
Vulkan
Metal
g(x)
f1(x)
%
g(x)
f1(x)
%
g(x)
f1(x)
%
g(x)
f1(x)
%
g(x)
f1(x)
%
bicycle
3.74
3.29
12
3.05
2.74
10
2.55
2.38
7
2.49
2.21
11
16.60
14.35
14
bonsai
2.40
2.07
14
1.19
0.93
21
0.85
0.75
11
0.79
0.62
22
5.11
3.89
24
counter
2.24
1.59
29
1.65
1.28
23
1.01
0.87
14
1.12
0.87
22
6.63
4.74
29
drjohnson
2.43
2.03
17
2.03
1.71
16
1.20
1.10
8
1.50
1.28
15
10.18
7.87
23
flowers
3.00
2.38
21
1.75
1.50
14
1.57
1.43
9
1.49
1.34
10
10.28
8.88
14
Table 2: Performance measurements of our first-order approximation in different Gaussian Splatting implementations. Timing measurements in the kernel columns ( g(x) and f1(x) ) are the frame time in milliseconds, measured on the GPU, except for MetalSplatter [ 4 ] where sorting is done on the CPU and we therefore measured CPU frame time. The % column shows the performance improvement of f1(x) over g(x) in percent.
Kernel
Cul
Opt
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
Baseline
Faster-GS
g(x)
S
0.834
27.316
0.217
2.468
1.427
f1(x)
S
0.819
26.456
0.224
2.375
1.447
f1(x)
0
0.819
26.456
0.224
2.207
f1(x)
1
0.819
26.456
0.224
2.018
1.300
f2′(x)
S
0.827
26.851
0.219
2.390
1.484
f2′(x)
1
0.827
26.851
0.219
2.159
1.360
Table 3: We ablate our methods separating the influence of the changed kernel and culling, computing quality metrics (for SSIM and PSNR higher is better, for LPIPS lower is better) and average frame times for Baseline and Faster-GS. Values are averaged over all evaluated scenes. Culling (Cul) is done with either unaltered StopThePop [ 26 ] culling (S), culling to the root of the approximation polynomial (0) or to the tighter value of 2551 (1). We also evaluate optimization (Opt) of the scenes with the shown kernel directly instead of using a scene optimized with g(x) .
Figure 3: Artifacts caused by different mechanisms. (a) shows the truck scene rendered with g(x) but with the opacity-aware culling of f1(x) , culling to 2551 . In contrast to using f1(x) , using g(x) introduces noticeable blocky artifacts especially for bigger splats as the culling is too tight and the opacity at the culling edge not low enough. (b) shows what happens when the treehill scene is color clamped before blending as happens in vk_gaussian_splatting. This also happens in vanilla Gaussian Splatting when an upper limit on the color is introduced.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 4: To determine the range within which the kernel is evaluated we consider the worst case based on a tile based culling approach. The kernel is only evaluated for tiles which the splat touches. The worst case is when the splat just barely touches a tile in which case the kernel is still evaluated for the point within the tile furthest away from the splat center. In the one-dimensional case (a) this maximum distance to the cut-off pc plus the tile size pt . In the two-dimensional case (b) pc is computed from the smaller splat scale and the diagonal of the tile needs to be added instead of just the tile size.
Baseline
Faster-GS
g(x)
f1(x)
%
f2′(x)
%
f3(x)
%
g(x)
f1(x)
%
f2′(x)
%
f3(x)
%
bicycle
3.74
3.29
12
3.62
3
3.77
-1
2.55
2.38
7
2.44
4
2.52
1
bonsai
2.40
2.07
14
2.21
8
2.32
3
0.85
0.75
11
0.81
5
0.85
0
counter
2.24
1.59
29
1.74
22
2.07
8
1.01
0.87
14
0.94
7
1.00
1
drjohnson
2.43
2.03
17
2.14
12
2.37
2
1.20
1.10
8
1.16
3
1.19
1
flowers
3.00
2.38
21
2.60
13
2.85
5
1.57
1.43
9
1.49
5
1.55
1
Appendix
Table 4: Performance measurements of our first-, second- and third-order approximation in Baseline and Faster-GS. Timing measurements in the kernel columns are the frame time in milliseconds, measured on the GPU. The % columns show the performance improvement of the kernel left of it over g(x) in percent.
Recent advancements in 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) have shifted the focus toward balancing reconstruction fidelity with computational efficiency. In this work, we propose ImprovedGS+, a high-performance, low-level reinvention of the ImprovedGS strategy, implemented natively within the LichtFeld-Studio framework. By transitioning from high-level Python logic to hardware-optimized C++/CUDA kernels, we achieve a significant reduction in host-device synchronization and training latency. Our implementation introduces a Long-Axis-Split (LAS) CUDA kernel, custom Laplacian-based importance kernels with Non-Maximum Suppression (NMS) for edge scores, and an adaptive Exponential Scale Scheduler. Experimental results on the Mip-NeRF360 dataset demonstrate that ImprovedGS+ establishes a new Pareto-optimal front for scene reconstruction. Our 1M-budget variant outperforms the state-of-the-art MCMC baseline by achieving a 26.8% reduction in training time (saving 17 minutes per session) and utilizing 13.3% fewer Gaussians while maintaining superior visual quality. Furthermore, our full variant demonstrates a 1.28 dB PSNR increase over the ADC baseline with a 38.4% reduction in parametric complexity. These results validate ImprovedGS+ as a scalable, high-speed solution that upholds the core pillars of Speed, Quality, and Usability within the LichtFeld-Studio ecosystem.
3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) achieves state-of-the-art rendering quality at real-time speeds but suffers from "model bloat" - a large number of redundant, low-opacity Gaussians that inflate memory usage and training costs. This inefficiency stems from the standard "densify-then-prune" paradigm, which expands the model aggressively before relying on pruning to achieve compactness. To mitigate this problem, we present an efficient training framework that builds an intrinsically compact representation, replacing the conventional densify-then-prune cycle. Our method leverages a synergistic design: an L2 reconstruction loss to provide error-proportional gradients that stabilize optimization, and a novel Polarized Opacity Prior (POP) to actively manage the Gaussian population. POP steers informative primitives toward full opacity and uninformative ones toward transparency, enabling natural pruning and accelerating rendering through Early Ray Termination. Experiments on three public datasets demonstrate that our approach consistently achieves accelerated 3DGS training with significantly fewer Gaussians while maintaining comparable visual reconstruction quality. These results show that the proposed framework provides a simple and effective path toward fast and inherently compact 3DGS training.
Zi-Ming Wang, Kai-Wen Duan, Kowei Huang +2
National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan · National Institute of Informatics, Japan
3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has significantly advanced real-time novel view synthesis by representing scenes as dense collections of anisotropic 3D Gaussian primitives. However, the irregular spatial distribution of Gaussians often leads to poor GPU utilization, as warp divergence and redundant computation degrade rendering performance. To address this, we present Local-GS, a warp-coherent rendering paradigm that, organizes Gaussian primitives with respect to SIMT (Single Instruction, Multiple Threads) execution boundaries rather than scene geometry. Specifically, we propose three warp-coherent stages: a hoisting stage that precomputes shared parameters at tile level, a culling stage that discards warps with no contribution, and a blending stage that replaces per-pixel branching with a uniform instruction stream. Across extensive benchmarks on multiple datasets, Local-GS improves efficiency without compromising quality. As a plug-and-play optimization, it provides additional performance gains to all tested baselines, culminating in a 7.76× speedup on Deep Blending scenes.
Yang Luo, Yan Gong, Yongsheng Gao +3
State Key Laboratory of Robotics and Systems, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001, China · State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Green Vehicle and Mobility, the School of Vehicle and Mobility, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China · Department of Computer Science and Technology, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China