Recent advances in 3D Gaussian Splatting have enabled impressive photorealistic novel view synthesis. However, to transition from a pure rendering engine to a reliable spatial map for autonomous agents and safety-critical applications, knowing where the representation is uncertain is as important as the rendering fidelity itself. We bridge this critical gap by introducing a lightweight, plug-and-play framework for pixel-wise, view-dependent predictive uncertainty estimation. Our post-hoc method formulates uncertainty as a Bayesian-regularized linear least-squares optimization over reconstruction residuals. This architecture-agnostic approach extracts a per-primitive uncertainty channel without modifying the underlying scene representation or degrading baseline visual fidelity. Crucially, we demonstrate that providing this actionable reliability signal successfully translates 3D Gaussian splatting into a trustworthy spatial map, further improving state-of-the-art performance across three critical downstream perception tasks: active view selection, pose-agnostic scene change detection, and pose-agnostic anomaly detection.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Per-pixel UE for NVS. Our post-hoc method generates a view-dependent uncertainty map that closely mirrors regions of error within the RGB render.
Figure 2: Visual example of reconstruction residual on training views. (Left) ground truth, (Center) rendering, (Right) residual map. The residual maps capture errors caused by both imperfect geometry ( e.g . , under-reconstructed regions in vegetation) and the limited capacity of view-dependent appearance ( e.g . , reflections on the table).
Figure 3: Overview of our approach: We learn a primitive-level uncertainty channel uk on a well-trained 3DGS, leveraging a (Bayesian-inspired) regularized linear least-squares formulation of training residuals. The learned view-dependent uncertainty can be rasterized to any given (novel) viewpoint Pj . Our method is post-hoc and therefore can be seamlessly integrated with any 3DGS variant without loss of fidelity.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of predicted uncertainty maps on the bonsai and stump scenes of Mip-NeRF360 [ 4 ] . Our UE more closely reflects the true error when compared to the baselines. Additional qualitative examples can be found in App. F.
Method
Mip-NeRF360 [ 4 ]
Tanks&Temples [ 28 ]
Deep Blending [ 18 ]
AUSE (↓)
Pearson (↑)
OH (↓)
AUSE (↓)
Pearson (↑)
OH (↓)
AUSE (↓)
Pearson (↑)
OH (↓)
L1
DSSIM
L1
DSSIM
( % )
L1
DSSIM
L1
DSSIM
( % )
L1
DSSIM
L1
DSSIM
( % )
FisherRF [ 21 ]
0.708
0.606
-0.055
0.009
14.2
0.691
0.709
-0.087
-0.145
19.3
0.751
0.853
-0.116
-0.190
19.7
Manifold [ 37 ]
0.520
0.559
0.070
-0.005
30.2
0.574
0.654
0.053
0.008
23.6
0.503
0.548
0.095
0.074
48.1
Var3DGS [ 33 ]
0.558
0.495
0.118
0.160
> 100
0.539
0.567
0.161
0.176
> 100
0.588
0.671
0.106
0.006
> 100
Ours
0.328
0.214
0.369
0.547
12.8
0.299
0.233
0.427
0.571
14.0
0.376
0.356
0.243
0.244
13.0
Table 1: Quantitative results for UE for NVS. We consistently outperform all baselines across all metrics and datasets while achieving minimal training overhead (OH).
Table 2: Results for (a) spherical harmonics degree ablation and (b) AVS.
Figure 5: Highly novel view experiments: (a) example for view setup (b) results
Figure 6: Qualitative examples of uncertainty maps with Bayesian-inspired regularization for different weights λreg (see Eq. 7 ) in the setting of highly novel views. The given AUSE values are with respect to DSSIM.
Figure 7: Qualitative examples of uncertainty-guided scene change detection. Our predicted uncertainty maps effectively capture rendering artifacts, allowing the system to suppress false positives caused by these artifacts rather than actual scene changes.
Feature Diff.
MV3DCD-ZS [ 13 ]
MV3DCD [ 13 ]
Online-SCD [ 12 ]
Metric
Base
+ Ours
Δ(%)
Base
+ Ours
Δ(%)
Base
+ Ours
Δ(%)
Base
+ Ours
Δ(%)
mIoU (↑)
0.278
0.359
29.1
0.382
0.439
14.9
0.470
0.498
6.0
0.486
0.498
2.5
F1 (↑)
0.402
0.502
24.9
0.526
0.593
12.7
0.621
0.649
4.5
0.638
0.651
2.1
Table 3: Numerical results for pose-agnostic SCD with uncertainty on PASLCD [ 13 ] . Our method consistently improves both state-of-the-art offline and online baselines. Percentage increase over the baseline is given in the Δ(%) column.
SplatPose [ 31 ]
SplatPosePlus [ 35 ]
Metric
Base
+ Ours
Δ(%)
Base
+ Ours
Δ(%)
AUROC (↑)
0.929
0.939
1.1
0.940
0.956
0.7
AUPRO (↑)
0.700
0.765
9.3
0.761
0.798
4.9
Table 4: Quantitative results for pose-agnostic AD on MAD-Real [ 62 ] . Our UE guidance enables SplatPose [ 31 ] to match or surpass its successor, SplatPosePlus [ 35 ] . Furthermore, applying our framework directly to SplatPosePlus advances the current state-of-the-art. Percentage increase over the baseline is given in the Δ(%) column.
Method
AUSE (↓)
Pearson (↑)
L1
DSSIM
L1
DSSIM
3DGS [ 23 ]
+ FisherRF
0.708
0.606
-0.055
0.009
+ Ours
0.328
0.214
0.369
0.547
Depth regularized 3DGS [ 24 ]
+ FisherRF
0.704
0.603
-0.059
-0.018
Table 5: Quantitative results for UE in NVS on Mip-NeRF360 [ 4 ] with different 3DGS variants [ 24 , 23 , 16 , 61 ] . Our approach can be applied post-hoc to any 3DGS variant and delivers comparable performance across variants.
Method
Mip-NeRF360
Tanks&Temples
Deep Blending
PSNR (↑)
SSIM (↑)
LPIPS (↓)
PSNR (↑)
SSIM (↑)
LPIPS (↓)
PSNR (↑)
SSIM (↑)
LPIPS (↓)
Manifold [ 37 ]
27.273
0.809
0.230
23.517
0.842
0.190
29.239
0.902
0.252
Var3DGS [ 33 ]
27.137
0.807
0.231
23.321
0.840
0.186
28.806
0.895
0.263
3DGS [ 23 ]
27.595
0.816
0.216
23.474
0.848
0.172
29.899
0.908
0.242
Table 6: Reconstruction quality comparison of stochastic 3DGS methods Manifold [ 37 ] and Var3DGS [ 33 ] to standard 3DGS [ 23 ] , which forms the underlying representation for our method and FisherRF [ 21 ] . Corresponding visual examples are shown in Figs. 11 and 12 .
Figure 8: Scene-wise results for uncertainty estimation on highly novel views for the Mip-NeRF360 [ 4 ] scenes bicycle , bonsai , and counter .
Figure 9: Scene-wise results for uncertainty estimation on highly novel views for the Mip-NeRF360 [ 4 ] scenes flowers , garden , and kitchen .
Figure 10: Scene-wise results for uncertainty estimation on highly novel views for the Mip-NeRF360 [ 4 ] scenes room , stump , and treehill .
Figure 11: Qualitative comparison of predicted uncertainty maps to DSSIM error map. Including separate renderings and error maps for the stochastic 3DGS methods Manifold [ 37 ] and Var3DGS [ 33 ] . Top: bicycle from Mip-NeRF360 [ 4 ] . Bottom: counter from Mip-NeRF360 [ 4 ] .
Figure 12: Qualitative comparison of predicted uncertainty maps to DSSIM error map. Including separate renderings and error maps for the stochastic 3DGS methods Manifold [ 37 ] and Var3DGS [ 33 ] . Top: room from Mip-NeRF360 [ 4 ] . Bottom: truck from Tanks&Temples [ 28 ] .
Iterations I
PSNR (↑)
SSIM (↑)
LPIPS (↓)
10
20.316
0.617
0.342
25
20.541
0.618
0.343
50
20.676
0.615
0.344
100
20.604
0.612
0.346
200
20.719
0.617
0.343
Table 7: Quantitative comparison of reconstruction fidelity for different numbers of iterations per view I .
Blur
Noise
Num. Views
5%
10%
5%
10%
64
16
4
Δ unc.
119%
129%
127%
136%
122%
266%
596%
Table 8: Predicted uncertainty level ( Δ unc.: increase in mean uncertainty on test views) relative to the standard 3DGS setting, for blur/noise added to a fraction [%] of the training views, or for a reduced number of training views. Results for the bicycle scene of Mip-NeRF360 [ 4 ] . The predicted uncertainty increases monotonically under both aleatoric (blur/noise) and epistemic (fewer views) perturbations.
Figure 13: Qualitative example showing that adding Gaussian noise to the 3DGS training views ( Noise ) increases the estimated uncertainty compared to 3DGS training without noise ( Ref. ).
3D Gaussian splatting (3DGS) is a strong representation for real-time novel-view synthesis, but its standard training pipeline relies on point estimates and hand-tuned heuristics, providing no native uncertainty or principled complexity control. This is most limiting under sparse views or fixed acquisition budgets, where a model must identify weakly supported geometry and select informative views. We introduce a rendering-aware Bayesian 3DGS framework that tracks Gaussian geometry with a Normal-Inverse-Wishart posterior over means and covariances using renderer-derived surrogate summaries. An optional Dirichlet-process extension adds a probabilistic component-usage signal, and the training schedule makes the closed-form versus approximate inference boundary explicit. Re-rendering posterior geometry samples yields native predictive uncertainty for interval calibration and active view selection. In a fixed-budget 16-to-32 active-view task, native NIW acquisition improves PSNR by +0.453 dB and LPIPS by -0.0146 over a scoring-only 3-member standard-ensemble baseline, winning 29/39 scene-seed pairs and 10/13 scene means; it also improves over PPU-style (+0.355 dB) and NIW-proxy (+0.401 dB) acquisition. NIW native intervals reduce 95% coverage error by about 17x relative to a shared proxy (0.046 vs. 0.796) and are about 10x closer to nominal coverage than a 3-member deep ensemble (0.047 vs. 0.454) at roughly one-third the training cost. As a reconstruction compatibility check, paired NIW-vs-standard analysis over 39 scene-seed runs yields +0.030 dB PSNR with 1.6% additional training time. These results position Bayesian 3DGS as a practical probabilistic scene representation for decision-facing tasks such as active view selection.
Gaoxiang Jia, Vikram Appia, Junzhou Huang +1
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. · Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering University of Texas at Arlington · Dept. of Mathematics & Division of Data Science University of Texas at Arlington
Sparse-view 3D Gaussian Splatting is prone to overfitting because limited observations leave many Gaussian primitives weakly constrained, yet their contributions are still accumulated through alpha blending. Without uncertainty estimation, the renderer cannot distinguish unreliable primitives from well-constrained ones, allowing their erroneous contributions to corrupt novel-view synthesis. We introduce UGOD, an uncertainty-guided framework that estimates a view-dependent uncertainty score for each Gaussian and uses it to regulate its rendering contribution. A lightweight uncertainty head conditioned on Gaussian attributes and viewing direction predicts this score, which then drives a differentiable opacity-modulation mechanism that attenuates high-uncertainty primitives before compositing. During training, a detached soft-dropout branch applies an uncertainty-controlled continuous keep mask to discourage the model from relying on poorly constrained Gaussians and thereby reduce overfitting. Crucially, detaching the uncertainty score prevents gradients from this stochastic regulariser from biasing or collapsing the uncertainty prediction. Experiments on Mip-NeRF~360 and LLFF show that UGOD improves sparse-view novel-view synthesis while producing more compact Gaussian representations than the compared methods. These results demonstrate that Gaussian uncertainty provides an effective rendering-time control for sparse-view reconstruction.
Zhihao Guo, Peng Wang, Zidong Chen +7
Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom. · University of Surrey, Guildford, United Kingdom. · Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom. +5
We present Gaussian Splatting Anisotropic Visibility Field (GAVIS), a novel framework for uncertainty quantification and active mapping in 3DGS. Our key insight is that regions unseen from the training views yield unreliable predictions from the 3DGS. To address this, we introduce a principled and efficient method for quantifying the visibility field in 3DGS, defined as the anisotropic visibility of each particle with respect to the training views, and represented using spherical harmonics. The resulting visibility field is integrated into a Bayesian Network-based uncertainty-aware 3DGS rasterizer, enabling real-time (200 FPS) uncertainty quantification for synthesized views. Active mapping is further performed within a maximum information gain framework building on this formulation. Extensive experiments across diverse environments demonstrate that GAVIS consistently and significantly outperforms prior approaches in both accuracy and efficiency. Moreover, beyond standalone use, our method can be applied post-hoc to improve the performance of existing approaches.