Pose-free feed-forward 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has opened a new frontier for rapid 3D modeling, enabling high-quality Gaussian representations to be generated from uncalibrated multi-view images in a single forward pass. The dominant approach adopts unified monolithic architectures, often built on geometry-centric 3D foundation models, to jointly estimate camera poses and synthesize 3DGS representations within a single network, entangling geometric reasoning and appearance modeling within a shared representation. In this work, we introduce 2Xplat, a pose-free feed-forward 3DGS framework based on a two-experts design that explicitly separates geometry estimation from Gaussian generation: a dedicated geometry expert first predicts camera poses, which are then passed to an appearance expert that synthesizes 3D Gaussians. Despite its conceptual simplicity, and being largely underexplored in prior works, our two-experts pipeline outperforms prior pose-free feed-forward 3DGS approaches in fewer than 5K training iterations, achieving performance on par with state-of-the-art posed methods. These results challenge the prevailing unified paradigm and suggest the potential advantages of modular design for complex 3D geometric estimation and appearance synthesis tasks.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Two experts vs. one generalist: (a) The prevailing monolithic architecture employs a shared backbone with task-specific heads to jointly predict camera poses and 3DGS representations in a single forward pass. (b) The two-experts architecture explicitly decomposes the process into sequential stages: a geometry expert first estimates camera poses from multi-view input images, and a dedicated appearance (posed feed-forward 3DGS) expert subsequently generates 3D Gaussian representations conditioned on the predicted poses and input images.
Method
p
k
6v
12v
24v
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
MVSplat
✓
✓
22.659
0.760
0.173
21.289
0.709
0.224
19.975
0.662
0.269
DepthSplat
✓
✓
23.418
0.797
0.136
21.911
0.753
0.179
20.088
0.690
0.240
YoNoSplat
✓
✓
24.717
0.817
0.139
23.285
0.773
0.177
22.664
0.758
0.192
Ours
✓
✓
25.217
0.827
0.150
24.592
0.813
0.169
24.354
0.811
0.174
Ours+vdo
✓
✓
26.631
0.856
0.121
27.240
0.866
0.115
27.413
0.877
0.109
Table 1: Novel view synthesis results on DL3DV with 6, 12, and 24 input views at low-resolution ( 224×224 ). p and k denote the use of ground-truth poses and intrinsics, respectively. † indicates evaluation with EPA. ‘vdo’ denotes the use of view-dependent opacity and regularization in the appearance expert, and this variant is excluded from bold-letter ranking for fair comparison with baselines.
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison on DL3DV with varying numbers of input views.
Method
Optim.
(p, k)
16v
32v
64v
128v
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
3D-GS 30k
✓
✓
21.48
0.753
0.252
24.43
0.827
0.191
27.34
0.883
0.146
29.43
0.914
0.123
Long-LRM
✓
21.05
0.708
0.297
23.97
0.778
0.267
23.60
0.789
0.260
21.24
0.739
0.308
iLRM
✓
21.92
0.748
0.316
24.30
0.803
0.256
24.44
0.819
0.240
22.98
0.807
0.249
MVP+vdo
✓
23.76
0.798
0.239
25.96
0.847
0.187
27.73
0.881
0.154
29.02
0.903
0.134
Ours+vdo
22.90
0.754
0.259
24.75
0.800
0.208
26.11
0.830
0.180
27.16
0.853
0.162
Table 2: Quantitative comparison on the DL3DV dataset under varying numbers of input views (16, 32, 64, and 128) for high-resolution ( 960×540 ) novel view synthesis.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison on high-resolution DL3DV ( 960×540 ).
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison on low-resolution RE10K dataset with 6 context views.
Method
p
k
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DepthSplat
✓
✓
24.156
0.846
0.145
YoNoSplat
✓
✓
25.037
0.848
0.134
NoPoSplat †
✓
22.175
0.750
0.207
YoNoSplat †
✓
25.395
0.857
0.131
Ours †
✓
27.108
0.877
0.128
YoNoSplat
19.723
0.613
0.229
Table 3: Quantitative comparison on low-resolution RE10K dataset with 6 context views.
Method
32v
64v
128v
AnySplat
14.05
15.98
16.99
YoNoSplat † w/o GT k
16.89
17.37
17.64
YoNoSplat † w/ GT k
17.94
18.83
19.28
Ours † w/o GT k
18.04
19.64
20.74
Ours † w/ GT k
18.09
19.74
20.88
Table 4: Cross-dataset generalization from DL3DV to ScanNet++ (PSNR ↑ ).
Figure 6: Qualitative cross-dataset generalization from DL3DV to ScanNet++.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
FLARE
20.07
0.606
0.315
NoPoSplat †
20.36
0.636
0.291
YoNoSplat
18.68
0.526
0.337
YoNoSplat †
20.22
0.617
0.304
Ours
19.56
0.574
0.337
Ours †
20.06
0.606
0.329
Table 5: Sparse-view (two context views) NVS on DL3DV.
Table 7: Monolithic vs. two-experts architectures (PSNR ↑ ).
6v
12v
24v
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
× †
21.04
0.267
19.96
0.322
19.38
0.360
∘ †
25.23
0.151
24.36
0.177
24.08
0.185
Table 8: Joint training analysis on DL3DV 224×224 .
Method
(p, k)
16v
32v
64v
iLRM
✓
21.92
24.30
24.44
Ours † (iLRM)
19.71
22.84
22.10
Long-LRM
✓
21.05
23.97
23.60
Ours † (Long-LRM)
20.26
22.41
22.06
Table 9: Generality across appearance experts (PSNR ↑ ).
Method
5 ∘↑
10 ∘↑
20 ∘↑
Backbone
MASt3R 518×288
0.609
0.776
0.878
-
VGGT 518×280
0.566
0.753
0.867
-
π3 518×280
0.705
0.841
0.916
-
DA3 504×504
0.694
0.826
0.900
-
NoPoSplat 256×256
0.443
0.627
0.755
MASt3R
YoNoSplat 224×224
0.722
0.852
0.923
π3
Table 10: Pose estimation comparison on RE10K 224×224 .
(a) 4, 8, 16 input views
Method
Tanks & Temples
Mip-NeRF360
ETH3D
Average
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Ours+vdo †
15.52
0.542
0.507
17.38
0.435
0.581
16.62
0.543
0.553
16.51
0.507
0.547
Ours+vdo †
15.75
0.533
0.506
18.35
0.432
0.541
17.49
0.549
0.537
17.20
0.505
0.528
(b) 32, 64, 128 input views
Method
Tanks & Temples
Mip-NeRF360
ETH3D
Average
Table 11: Average NVS generalization results across two input-view-count regimes: (a) 4, 8, and 16 input views, and (b) 32, 64, and 128 input views, evaluated on three datasets in the high-resolution setting ( 960×540 ). The last three columns report the mean PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS across the three datasets. The gray-colored row denotes 2Xplat results using MVP variant as the appearance backbone, while the non-gray row uses the original MVP. Full results are provided in table 14 .
Loss type
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
5 ∘↑
10 ∘↑
20 ∘↑
Rel. loss
26.161
0.131
0.718
0.843
0.912
Abs. loss
25.704
0.137
0.641
0.797
0.888
W/O loss
26.369
0.129
0.686
0.836
0.905
Table 12: Pose supervision ablation on DL3DV 224×224 .
Figure 7: Comparison between fixed and dynamic grouping. (a) Fixed grouping restricts each token to attend only within its assigned group, limiting network capacity even during later global attention. (b) Dynamic grouping relaxes this inductive bias (purple dotted arrows), giving the network greater capacity to attend across the full view during global attention.
MVP
MVP variant
Model size
240M
559M
Training dataset
DL3DV ( Ling et al. 2024 )
DL3DV ( Ling et al. 2024 ) RE10K ( Zhou et al. 2018 ) WildRGBD ( Xia et al. 2024 ) CO3Dv2 ( Reizenstein et al. 2021 ) MegaSynth ( Jiang et al. 2025b ) Syn4D ( Jiang et al. 2026 ) ScanNet++v2 ( Yeshwanth et al. 2023 ) BlendedMVS ( Yao et al. 2020 ) SWORD ( Solovev et al. 2023 ) UnrealStereo4K ( Tosi et al. 2021 ) MVS-Synth ( Huang et al. 2018 )
Table 13: Key differences between the original MVP and the its variant used as the appearance expert.
Method
Views
Tanks & Temples
Mip-NeRF360
ETH3D
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Ours+vdo †
4
13.96
0.494
0.604
14.75
0.375
0.682
13.61
0.498
0.650
Ours+vdo †
14.33
0.491
0.600
16.86
0.389
0.628
15.81
0.522
0.623
Ours+vdo †
8
15.12
0.534
0.516
17.48
0.434
0.586
16.75
0.547
0.555
Ours+vdo †
15.50
0.530
0.509
18.34
0.432
0.538
17.44
0.552
0.532
Ours+vdo †
16
17.49
0.597
0.402
19.90
0.497
0.476
19.51
0.585
0.454
Table 14: Cross Dataset Generalization (Tanks & Temples, Mip-NeRF360, ETH3D). The gray-colored row denotes 2Xplat results using MVP variant as the appearance backbone, while the non-gray row uses the original MVP. All context and target views are sampled uniformly from the original dataset resolution. Results for 128 views on ETH3D are omitted due to an insufficient number of available input views.
Figure 8: Visualization of the averaged global attention map in the last layer for (a) MVP and (b) MVP variant. Given a patch in the reference frame (top-left, outlined in red), MVP variant attends to all relevant patches across every input frame, resulting in more 3D-consistent attention, whereas MVP attends to only a few.
Pose-free feed-forward 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has demonstrated remarkable potential for generalized novel view synthesis. However, existing methods typically predict Gaussian appearance attributes represented by spherical harmonics (SH) in the same manner, overlooking the fundamental distinction between view-independent and view-dependent appearance, which results in suboptimal rendering quality. In this paper, we present AESplat, a novel and general framework for pose-free feed-forward 3DGS that introduces an effective decoupled appearance modeling strategy based on an analysis of SH, enabling higher-quality rendering. Specifically, AESplat directly derives the zeroth-order SH coefficient, which represents the base view-independent appearance component, from the input images without training. The higher-order SH coefficients are subsequently predicted by a shallow multilayer perceptron equipped with two efficient 3D-aware inductive biases to model view-dependent appearance variations. Extensive experiments across multiple datasets demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms state-of-the-art approaches, achieving a 0.8 dB improvement in PSNR over the pose-free method NAS3R and a 1.1 dB improvement over the pose-required method DepthSplat on the RealEstate10K dataset. Project page: https://aesplat.github.io/.
While feed-forward 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) enables efficient 3D reconstruction, achieving high-fidelity rendering remains challenging. Existing pixel-aligned approaches suffer from spatial inflexibility and massive structural redundancy, whereas query-based methods lack 3D priors and entangle geometry with appearance, yielding blurry, pose-dependent results. To overcome these deficiencies, we propose QuerySplat, a feed-forward 3DGS framework driven by geometric priors and explicit appearance decoupling. Specifically, we design a dual-branch query-based decoder: the geometry branch leverages a pretrained Vision Geometric Model for spatial understanding, which intrinsically endows QuerySplat with pose-free modeling capabilities, while the appearance branch recovers high-frequency details through a dedicated pathway separated from geometric attribute regression. Extensive experiments demonstrate that QuerySplat mitigates the blurry rendering issues of early query-based models and consistently outperforms pixel-aligned approaches in rendering fidelity. On the challenging DL3DV benchmark, it achieves state-of-the-art novel view synthesis performance, with average PSNR gains of 2.30 dB and 1.04 dB over the best pose-free and pose-required baselines, respectively. Project Page: https://inspatio.github.io/querysplat.
Yinglong Li, Donghui Shen, Xiaoyu Zhang +5
State Key Laboratory of Virtual Reality Technology and Systems, Beihang University · InSpatio Research · State Key Lab of CAD&CG, Zhejiang University
Pose-free feed-forward 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) reconstructs a scene from sparse, unposed images in a single network pass, removing the need for camera calibration and per-scene optimization. However, camera estimation errors propagate into the predicted Gaussians and compound the geometric and photometric inaccuracies of single-pass prediction. To correct these errors, we introduce DeltaSplat, a lightweight Gaussian refinement module for pose-free feed-forward 3DGS. It iteratively renders the current Gaussians at the input context views and predicts per-Gaussian updates from the resulting residuals. A 2D residual alone, however, underdetermines the 3D correction. DeltaSplat therefore conditions each update on per-pixel Plücker rays and rendered depth as a soft geometric prior. A dual-branch convolutional mixer efficiently encodes these inputs, and per-attribute heads decode the fused features into position, opacity, and color updates. The module adds only ~2.2% parameters to the backbone and remains fully feed-forward at inference. On DL3DV, DeltaSplat reaches 26.64 dB PSNR in the pose-free setting, improving its state-of-the-art backbone by 1.75 dB and surpassing even baselines supplied with ground-truth cameras; consistent gains hold across 6-24 views and all camera regimes.
Chanung Park, Seunghyeon Song, Joo Chan Lee +2
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University · Department of Artificial Intelligence, Sungkyunkwan University · Department of Artificial Intelligence, Yonsei University