Recently, 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) greatly accelerated mesh extraction from posed images due to its explicit representation and fast software rasterization. While the addition of geometric losses and other priors has improved the accuracy of extracted surfaces, mesh extraction remains difficult in scenes with abundant view-dependent effects. To resolve the resulting ambiguities, prior works rely on multi-view techniques, iterative mesh extraction, or large pre-trained models, sacrificing the inherent efficiency of 3DGS. In this work, we present a simple and efficient alternative by introducing a self-supervised confidence framework to 3DGS: within this framework, learnable confidence values dynamically balance photometric and geometric supervision. Extending our confidence-driven formulation, we introduce losses which penalize per-primitive color and normal variance and demonstrate their benefits to surface extraction. Finally, we complement the above with an improved appearance model, by decoupling the individual terms of the D-SSIM loss. Our final approach delivers state-of-the-art results for unbounded meshes while remaining highly efficient.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Analysis of the Photometric Loss Components : The luminance term of D-SSIM is highly dependent on the illumination; in this example, the luminance error is reduced by a factor of 9× by considering the appearance embedding.
Figure 3: Confidence-Driven Gaussian Splatting: We show rendered images from our trained method, accompanied by the rendered confidence maps C^ . The confidence maps effectively isolate reflective surfaces, thin foliage, or rarely observed areas (such as the roof for Barn). Importantly, the low-confidence regions are still well-reconstructed.
Figure 4: Effect of our proposed Variance Losses: Rendering color and normals only for the first-hit Gaussians shows how our variance losses align individual Gaussians better to the true object surface, in both color and orientation.
Barn
Caterpillar
Courthouse
Ignatius
Meetingroom
Truck
Average
Runtime
PGSR
0.548
0.437
0.238
0.728
0.367
0.658
0.496
28min
QGS
0.536
0.374
0.183
0.733
0.374
0.645
0.474
41min
GOF
0.484
0.402
0.288
0.674
0.275
0.596
0.453
40min
SOF
0.535
0.408
0.297
0.736
0.309
0.558
0.474
17min
MILo
0.541
0.389
0.322
0.757
0.281
0.617
0.485
60min
Ours
0.534
0.472
0.333
0.782
0.372
0.634
0.521
18min
Table 1: Full Geometry Reconstruction results for the Tanks & Temples dataset [ 31 ] . We evaluate the F1-score (higher is better) and report runtimes, measured on an RTX 4090. Overall, our method achieves the best reconstruction quality of all tested methods (without leveraging multi-view constraints), while remaining efficient.
5a269ba6fe
08bbbdcc3d
39f36da05b
c263dfbf0
ef18cf0708
fb564c935d
Average
PGSR
0.668
0.666
0.647
0.630
0.542
0.632
0.631
QGS
0.646
0.622
0.571
0.522
0.504
0.572
0.573
GOF
0.620
0.670
0.611
0.672
0.504
0.661
0.623
SOF
0.599
0.681
0.616
0.675
0.497
0.621
0.615
MILo
0.622
0.675
0.621
0.626
0.542
0.660
0.624
Ours
0.670
0.729
0.657
0.715
0.551
0.684
0.668
Table 2: Full Geometry Reconstruction results for our ScanNet++-v2 subset [ 69 ] , where we report the F1-score. Our method attains the highest scores across all scenes, underscoring our real-world applicability.
Tanks & Temples
ScanNet++
Method
Precision ↑
Recall ↑
F1-Score ↑
Precision ↑
Recall ↑
F1-Score ↑
SOF [ 52 ] (baseline)
0.542
0.438
0.474
0.565
0.677
0.615
+ Improved Appearance
0.557
0.459
0.493
0.577
0.685
0.625
+ Lconf
0.568
0.479
0.509
0.605
0.715
0.655
+ Lcolor-var
0.571
0.491
0.519
0.606
0.722
0.658
+ Lnormal-var
0.580
0.491
0.521
0.613
0.734
0.668
Table 3: Ablation Study for our Method: We analyze the effects of our individual contribution on both the Tanks & Temples [ 31 ] and the ScanNet++ dataset [ 69 ] . As we can see, all our proposed components result in notable improvements.
Figure 5: Qualitative Mesh Comparison : Our approach produces more detailed meshes with fewer artifacts than other unbounded methods [ 18 , 52 ] . Additionally, it achieves higher completeness and finer detail than bounded extraction works [ 5 , 77 ] .
Figure 6: Unbounded Mesh Rendering: Our method reconstructs both fine details and high-quality backgrounds on challenging Mip-NeRF 360 scenes [ 1 ] .
Baselines (Standard)
Ours (Ablations)
Method
Precision ↑
Recall ↑
F1-Score ↑
Method
Precision ↑
Recall ↑
F1-Score ↑
VastG. [ 37 ]
0.541
0.440
0.475
VastG. (Imp.)
0.557
0.445
0.484
PGSR [ 5 ]
0.545
0.441
0.478
w/o l(⋅)
0.559
0.441
0.483
H3DGS [ 29 ]
0.553
0.448
0.484
w/o SSIM Dec.
0.559
0.453
0.490
PPISP [ 10 ]
0.556
0.456
0.489
Ours
0.557
0.459
0.493
Table 4: Ablation Study on the Decoupled Appearance Module: We compare appearance embeddings via surface reconstruction on the Tanks & Temples dataset [ 31 ] . Our proposed decoupled configuration yields the strongest results.
Figure 7: β -Ablation Study: We evaluate surface reconstruction quality for varying choices of β . Our chosen value of 7.5×10−2 achieves the best performance.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Barn
Caterpillar
Courthouse
Ignatius
Meetingroom
Truck
Average
# Gaussians
Ours
0.534
0.472
0.333
0.782
0.372
0.634
0.521
1.27M
Ours w/o adapted densification
0.537
0.463
0.338
0.769
0.369
0.623
0.516
1.53M
Ours
0.534
0.472
0.333
0.782
0.372
0.634
0.521
1.27M
Ours w/ Lconf from iter. 2.5K
0.532
0.465
0.330
0.783
0.363
0.637
0.518
1.34M
Ours w/ Lconf from iter. 5K
0.537
0.465
0.323
0.780
0.366
0.632
0.517
1.42M
Ours w/ Lconf from iter. 10K
0.537
0.447
0.328
0.764
0.359
0.616
0.508
1.43M
Appendix
Table 5: Extended Ablation Studies for the Tanks & Temples dataset [ 31 ] . We investigate the impact of our confidence-steered densification, our choice of using Lconf from iteration 500 , and verify our chosen hyperparameters.
Figure 8: ScanNet++ dataset [ 69 ] : We show example images from our selected scenes, with the number of images per-scene inset. All selected scenes contain challenging reflections ( e.g . 5a269ba6fe, fb564c935d ), textureless areas, and motion blur.
Barn
Caterpillar
Courthouse
Ignatius
Meetingroom
Truck
Average
Runtime
Ours
0.534
0.472
0.333
0.782
0.372
0.634
0.521
18min
GeoSVR
0.557
0.495
0.347
0.804
0.382
0.688
0.546
42min
GeoSVR (w/ QGS Eval)
0.544
0.432
0.328
0.787
0.408
0.651
0.525
42min
Appendix
Table 6: Comparison with prior-dependent GeoSVR [ 33 ] using the Tanks & Temples dataset [ 31 ] . Our method is able to extract unbounded meshes while keeping processing time low, whereas GeoSVR attains a higher F1-score.
Figure 9: Completeness Comparison: Due to gaps in the ground-truth point clouds, our more complete meshes are penalized in precision, compared to the bounded meshes from PGSR [ 5 ] (black points denote low precision). This highlights the fundamental disadvantage unbounded methods face for this benchmark.
Figure 10: Novel View Mesh Rendering Comparison with Bounded Methods. Our meshes are significantly more complete and detailed compared to bounded methods, such as PGSR [ 5 ] .
Figure 11: Novel View Mesh Rendering Comparison with Unbounded Methods. Our method consistently preserves geometry and intricate topological details that MILo [ 18 ] smooths over or misrepresents.
Scan ID
24
37
40
55
63
65
69
83
97
105
106
110
114
118
122
Average
PGSR
0.38
0.67
0.42
0.35
0.76
0.58
0.53
1.08
0.70
0.61
0.45
0.55
0.34
0.42
0.40
0.55
QGS
0.45
0.77
0.37
0.37
0.84
0.91
0.55
1.15
1.00
0.62
0.46
0.70
0.36
0.45
0.41
0.63
GOF
0.53
0.89
0.43
0.38
1.33
0.87
0.77
1.28
1.29
0.79
0.77
1.15
0.46
0.70
0.54
0.81
SOF
0.55
0.70
0.41
0.39
1.12
0.73
0.66
1.11
1.47
0.60
0.63
1.05
0.58
0.62
0.48
0.74
MILo
0.46
0.77
0.35
0.39
0.80
0.86
0.72
1.20
1.22
0.66
0.63
0.93
0.38
0.79
0.49
0.71
Ours
0.43
0.70
0.34
0.39
0.92
0.70
0.67
1.03
1.19
0.50
0.49
1.05
0.47
0.41
0.40
0.65
Appendix
Table 7: Full Geometry Reconstruction results for the DTU dataset [ 23 ] , where we report the Chamfer distance (lower is better). Our method attains the lowest average Chamfer distance for all methods designed to extract unbounded meshes.
Mip-NeRF 360 Indoor
Mip-NeRF 360 Outdoor
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
# Gaussians
PGSR †
30.35
0.924
0.176
24.29
0.718
0.236
-
QGS †
30.45
0.919
0.184
24.32
0.706
0.242
-
GOF †
30.47
0.918
0.189
24.79
0.745
0.208
-
SOF †
30.13
0.916
0.188
24.78
0.745
0.208
-
MILo †
29.96
0.920
0.191
24.47
0.718
0.290
-
Appendix
Table 8: Novel View Synthesis Ablation for the Mip-NeRF 360 dataset [ 1 ] , where we report PSNR, SSIM and LPIPS. Notably, adding Lconf does not negatively impact image quality metrics overall. Results with † were taken from [ 77 , 52 , 18 ] .
Figure 12: Confidence Evaluation: Our learned confidence directly correlates with the error maps, demonstrating that it can detect under-reconstructed regions.
Figure 13: Effect of our proposed Variance Losses: We visualize the first-hit , last-hit and fully alpha-blended colors and normals. As can be seen, our variance losses constrain spurious geometry and lead to smoother normal maps.
Figure 14: Effect of our SSIM-decoupled Appearance Module : We show rendered images from two spatially close camera poses. As can be seen, the illumination for Ours is more consistent; this is caused by our improved appearance module.
Tanks & Temples
Mip-NeRF 360
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
# Verts ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
# Verts ↓
Ours
21.186
0.683
0.345
13.06M
23.639
0.661
0.332
18.43M
MILo
21.169
0.673
0.354
5.34M
23.869
0.675
0.322
6.20M
SOF
20.936
0.672
0.354
14.07M
23.304
0.634
0.351
23.28M
GOF
20.959
0.675
0.354
14.40M
22.998
0.619
0.365
22.37M
Appendix
Table 9: Mesh-Based Novel View Synthesis: We report novel view synthesis metrics as a proxy for evaluating underlying geometric accuracy, using the Mip-NeRF 360 and Tanks & Temples datasets. We attain comparable quality to MILo [ 18 ] across both tested datasets.
Mesh extraction from 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) aims to endow 3D Gaussians with accurate geometric structures, enabling explicit and precise 3D occupancy. However, existing methods primarily focus on scene-level mesh extraction, making them unable to represent object-level occupancy and often resulting in non-watertight surfaces. To overcome these limitations, we propose MEGA (Mesh Extraction from GAussians), a ``segment-then-mesh'' framework for extracting object-level, watertight meshes from complex 3DGS scenes. At the core of MEGA are Spatial Visual Distillation (SVD) and a mask-guided neural surface reconstruction module. SVD treats the 3DGS model as a teacher, sampling diverse camera poses and rendering the corresponding views of each segmented object. These observations are then used to train a mesh reconstruction model through photometric supervision. Extensive experiments on several widely used benchmarks demonstrate that MEGA achieves state-of-the-art performance in recovering accurate object-level 3D occupancy. Moreover, MEGA enables complex physical interactions by combining high-quality object-level meshes for geometric occupancy with 3DGS representations for photorealistic rendering.
Liwei Liao, Yingkui Zhang, Qianqian Tong +1
Peking University · Pengcheng Laboratory · Beihang University
3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has emerged as a promising method for high-quality, real-time 3D reconstruction. To associate 3DGS with mesh representations, existing methods primarily focus on 3DGS-to-mesh reconstruction from multi-view images. In contrast, the problem of converting a mesh into 3DGS has received comparatively less attention. Instead of relying on heuristic strategies that bind 3D Gaussians to the mesh, we propose a novel white-box 3DGS construction framework, termed Mesh2GS, which generates 3DGS directly from mesh geometry based on plenoptic sampling theory, achieving Nyquist-level performance for high-quality global illumination rendering. Firstly, we propose a plenoptic sampling guided 3DGS construction strategy that theoretically derives the minimum sampling rate of the sampled views and the distribution of 3D Gaussians. Second, we propose a novel 3DGS update procedure with albedo--shading decomposition for efficient global-illumination capture. Finally, we introduce a neural illumination enhancement module to handle non-Lambertian effects. Experimental results demonstrate that our method surpasses state-of-the-art baselines and is practically effective for both real-time shared rendering and non-Lambertian effects capturing specular highlights. The project code will be released upon acceptance.
3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has revolutionized fast novel view synthesis, yet its opacity-based formulation makes surface extraction fundamentally difficult. Unlike implicit methods built on Signed Distance Fields or occupancy, 3DGS lacks a global geometric field, forcing existing approaches to resort to heuristics such as TSDF fusion of blended depth maps. Inspired by the Objects as Volumes framework, we derive a principled occupancy field for Gaussian Splatting and show how it can be used to extract highly accurate watertight meshes of complex scenes. Our key contribution is to introduce a learnable oriented normal at each Gaussian element and to define an adapted attenuation formulation, which leads to closed-form expressions for both the normal and occupancy fields at arbitrary locations in space. We further introduce a novel consistency loss and a dedicated densification strategy to enforce Gaussians to wrap the entire surface by closing geometric holes, ensuring a complete shell of oriented primitives. We modify the differentiable rasterizer to output depth as an isosurface of our continuous model, and introduce Primal Adaptive Meshing for Region-of-Interest meshing at arbitrary resolution. We additionally expose fundamental biases in standard surface evaluation protocols and propose two more rigorous alternatives. Overall, our method Gaussian Wrapping sets a new state-of-the-art on DTU and Tanks and Temples, producing complete, watertight meshes at a fraction of the size of concurrent work-recovering thin structures such as the notoriously elusive bicycle spokes.
Diego Gomez, Antoine Guédon, Nissim Maruani +2
LIX, École Polytechnique, France · Inria, Côte d’Azur, France