Ray-tracing-based 3D Gaussian splatting (3DGS) methods overcome the limitations of rasterization -- rigid pinhole camera assumptions, inaccurate shadows, and lack of native reflection or refraction -- but remain slower due to the cost of sorting all intersecting Gaussians along every ray. Moreover, existing ray-tracing methods still rely on rasterization-style approximations such as shadow mapping for relightable scenes, undermining the generality that ray tracing promises. We present a differentiable, sorting-free stochastic formulation for ray-traced 3DGS -- the first framework that uses stochastic ray tracing to both reconstruct and render standard and relightable 3DGS scenes. At its core is an unbiased Monte Carlo estimator for pixel-color gradients that evaluates only a small sampled subset of Gaussians per ray, bypassing the need for sorting. For standard 3DGS, our method matches the reconstruction quality and speed of rasterization-based 3DGS while substantially outperforming sorting-based ray tracing. For relightable 3DGS, the same stochastic estimator drives per-Gaussian shading with fully ray-traced shadow rays, delivering notably higher reconstruction fidelity than prior work.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Our stochastic gradient estimation ( Algorithm 2 ) works by drawing a Gaussian gI along each camera ray (illustrated in dark blue) followed by another gK behind it. Then, the colors c+ and c− of these Gaussians are computed for evaluating Equation (11) . For standard 3DGS, these colors can be obtained by evaluating the associated spherical harmonics (SH). For relightable 3DGS, on the contrary, we compute c+ and c− using Monte Carlo by tracing additional shadow rays (shown in yellow) toward a light source.
Method\Metric
MipNeRF360
Tanks & Temples
Deep Blending
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Time ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Time ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Time ↓
3DGS
28.69
0.867
0.224
24m
23.14
0.853
-
14m
29.41
0.903
-
20m
3DGRT
28.40
0.862
0.233
69m
22.95
0.838
0.221
41m
29.69
0.904
0.318
54m
Ours
28.31
0.857
0.254
33m
22.57
0.830
0.221
20m
29.87
0.906
0.324
25m
Table 1: Novel view synthesis : Results of our approach and baselines on standard novel view synthesis benchmarks. As a ray tracing algorithm, our method runs at a similar speed to the rasterization-based baseline and achieves comparable quality on all benchmarks.
Time (ms)
Total
Backward
3DGS
31.4
20.6
3DGRT
87.5
50.5
Ours
39.8
17.9
Table 2: Per-iteration timing breakdown on MipNeRF360 [ 2 ] . Our method significantly accelerates the ray tracing baseline.
Figure 3: PSNR vs. optimization time for sorted alpha blending (3DGRT) and our method.
Figure 4: Reconstruction quality comparison between our method and StochasticSplats [ 19 ] .
PSNR ↑∣ SSIM ↑
Ours
RNG
GS 3
Lego
30.40 ∣ 0.949
26.72 ∣ 0.924
26.62 ∣ 0.923
Basket
28.02 ∣ 0.956
19.97 ∣ 0.853
23.22 ∣ 0.936
Pixiu
30.89 ∣ 0.936
30.35 ∣ 0.941
30.38 ∣ 0.937
Hotdog
31.88 ∣ 0.955
30.38 ∣ 0.960
25.40 ∣ 0.949
FurBall
33.69 ∣ 0.949
27.82 ∣ 0.926
26.36 ∣ 0.931
Cat
28.42 ∣ 0.870
28.39 ∣ 0.888
26.09 ∣ 0.882
Table 3: Results of our method and baselines on the NRHints dataset [ 32 ] .
Figure 5: Equal-time comparison between our method and baselines. All methods run for the same wall-clock time. Our method produces comparable visual quality to 3DGS and outperforms 3DGRT.
Figure 6: Reconstruction quality of our method and baselines on the relightable benchmark. Our method produces significantly better geometry, especially shadow quality.
Figure 7: Re-renderings of our reconstructed 3DGS objects under novel environmental illumination.
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method\Metric
MipNeRF360
Tanks & Temples
Deep Blending
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Time ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Time ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Time ↓
Ours
28.31
0.857
0.254
33m
22.57
0.830
0.221
20m
29.87
0.906
0.324
25m
Ours-FullStoch (15spp)
27.90
0.843
0.265
37m
22.37
0.821
0.233
21m
29.51
0.902
0.330
24m
Ours-Fullstoch (30spp)
28.14
0.850
0.254
52m
22.75
0.827
0.229
25m
29.75
0.904
0.327
29m
SS-Tracing
22.12
0.648
0.451
89m
14.94
0.532
0.560
54m
18.08
0.726
0.578
68m
Appendix
Table 4: Novel view synthesis : Comparison between our method, our method with stochastic forward pass, and [ 19 ] , in terms of both speed and quality.
Figure 8: Visualization of the variance of the gradient obtained by our method and the baseline method. (a) shows the forward rendering result, and (b) visualizes the opacities of each Gaussian along the ray at the red cross in (a). We further visualize the gradient that the Gaussians along each pixel receive when applying: (c) Sorted alpha blending (3DGRT), (d) Ours, with Mb=8 , (e) Our implementation of [ 19 ] , with Mb=8 , and (f) Our implementation of [ 19 ] , with Mb=128 . The time for the backward pass and RMSE are provided with each image.
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Time ↓
3DGRT
33.84
0.970
0.038
10m21s
SS-Tracing
31.67
0.958
0.050
24m31s
Ours
33.99
0.970
0.039
6m57s
Appendix
Table 5: NeRF Synthetic Dataset
Figure 9: Similar to our ray tracing baseline, our method also seamlessly supports distorted cameras, e.g., fisheye.
Figure 10: Equal-time Comparison between our method and baselines. We run the methods for the same period of wall-clock time, and compare the reconstruction quality. Our method produces comparable visual quality to 3DGS, and outperforms 3DGRT.
Figure 11: Visualization of reconstruction quality of our method and baselines. Our method produces significantly better geometry, and in particular, shadow quality.
3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has established itself as a leading technique for 3D reconstruction and novel view synthesis of static scenes, achieving outstanding rendering quality and fast training. However, the method does not explicitly model the scene illumination, making it unsuitable for relighting tasks. Furthermore, 3DGS struggles to reconstruct scenes captured in the wild by unconstrained photo collections featuring changing lighting conditions. In this paper, we present R3GW, a novel method that learns a relightable 3DGS representation of an outdoor scene captured in the wild. Our approach separates the scene into a relightable foreground and a non-reflective background (the sky), using two distinct sets of Gaussians. R3GW models view-dependent lighting effects in the foreground reflections by combining Physically Based Rendering with the 3DGS scene representation in a varying illumination setting. We evaluate our method quantitatively and qualitatively on the NeRF-OSR dataset, offering state-of-the-art performance and enhanced support for physically-based relighting of unconstrained scenes. Our method synthesizes photorealistic novel views under arbitrary illumination conditions. Additionally, our representation of the sky mitigates depth reconstruction artifacts, improving rendering quality at the sky-foreground boundary
Margherita Lea Corona, Wieland Morgenstern, Peter Eisert +1
Fraunhofer Heinrich Hertz Institute, Berlin, Germany · Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Conventional 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) requires depth sorting and ordered alpha blending to correctly render overlapping Gaussian primitives. Stochastic transparency enables sorting-free rendering by replacing fractional alpha contributions with discrete stochastic visibility samples, but produces substantial spatial and temporal noise at low sample counts. We refer to this conversion from continuous Gaussian splats to discrete visibility samples as Gaussian Stippling. Based on this, we present an efficient order-independent rendering and reconstruction framework that operates directly on unmodified 3DGS assets. Our method adaptively integrates primitive-based and fragment-based stippling, leveraging their complementary strengths across different rendering regimes to significantly improve rendering throughput. To recover high-quality images from sparse stochastic samples, we further introduce a lightweight Gaussian-aware spatiotemporal reconstruction network. By exploiting the Gaussian attributes retained by each stipple, the network aggregates structured stochastic clues across both space and time, effectively suppressing stippling noise. Experiments show that our hybrid Gaussian stippling method, coupled with a spatiotemporal reconstruction network trained on diverse scenes, generalizes to unseen scenes and enables interactive, temporally stable, and visually plausible rendering on mobile devices without retraining or preprocessing. With scene-specific training and appropriately scaled sampling and network capacity, our method further outperforms the baselines in visual quality, offering a high-fidelity configuration for quality-prioritized applications.
Zijian Huang, Suiliang Mai, Chuankun Zheng +2
State Key Laboratory of CAD&CG, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China
3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) employs Gaussian primitives for explicit scene representation, facilitating real-time, high-fidelity reconstruction and novel view synthesis of complex scenes. However, the explicit modeling inherent in 3DGS introduces a gradient bias during optimization, rendering its non-convex optimization process highly susceptible to convergence toward local suboptimal solutions. This constitutes a fundamental limitation in 3DGS optimization, which we term the Blur Trap. To address this limitation, we integrate simple explicit exploration into the 3DGS optimization framework. First, through rigorous mathematical analysis of the 3DGS optimization formulation, we identify the underlying optimization bias responsible for the Blur Trap and categorize it into two distinct subtypes: the Far-Side Blur Trap and the Near-Side Blur Trap. Subsequently, we propose two highly straightforward exploration strategies (Random Seeding and Random Splitting) to mitigate the far-side and near-side blur traps, respectively. Experimental validation demonstrates that the incorporation of these exploration operators effectively and complementarily overcome the Blur Trap, achieving high-quality rendering performance across multiple datasets. Project page: https://chengbo-wang.github.io/ExploreGS/
Chengbo Wang, Guozheng Ma, Jinhong Wu +2
1Hunan University · 2Nanyang Technological University