Organizations: School of Computer Science and Technology, Ocean University of China · Singapore Management University · Harbin Institute of Technology (Shenzhen) · Sanya Oceanographic Institution, Ocean University of China
We present NimbusGS, a unified framework for reconstructing high-quality 3D scenes from degraded multi-view inputs captured under diverse and mixed adverse weather conditions. Unlike existing methods that target specific weather types, NimbusGS addresses the broader challenge of generalization by modeling the dual nature of weather: a continuous, view-consistent medium that attenuates light, and dynamic, view-dependent particles that cause scattering and occlusion. To capture this structure, we decompose degradations into a global transmission field and per-view particulate residuals. The transmission field represents static atmospheric effects shared across views, while the residuals model transient disturbances unique to each input. To enable stable geometry learning under severe visibility degradation, we introduce a geometry-guided gradient scaling mechanism that mitigates gradient imbalance during the self-supervised optimization of 3D Gaussian representations. This physically grounded formulation allows NimbusGS to disentangle complex degradations while preserving scene structure, yielding superior geometry reconstruction and outperforming task-specific methods across diverse and challenging weather conditions. Code is available at https://github.com/lyy-ovo/NimbusGS.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: We propose NimbusGS, a unified framework for 3D reconstruction under diverse and hybrid weather conditions. It jointly addresses continuous medium effects (haze, H), particulate degradations (snow, S; rain, R), and their mixed combinations. Panel (a) presents visual comparisons across weather types, while panel (b) summarizes metric profiles over seven single and hybrid settings.
Figure 2: Overview of NimbusGS. Starting from a geometry initialization, transient particle effects are separated as per-view residuals. CSM estimates an extinction field from which transmission and airlight are derived, blended with the scene rendering and residuals to reproduce the degradations. This self-supervised process guides the Gaussian representation toward a clean and consistent reconstruction.
Method
Bicycle
Garden
Factory
Tanabata
Average
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
3DGS [ 20 ]
17.19
0.578
0.319
13.33
0.522
0.344
15.51
0.687
0.206
12.25
0.565
0.262
14.57
0.588
0.283
SeaSplat [ 49 ]
18.28
0.588
0.312
15.07
0.676
0.326
12.50
0.792
0.190
16.44
0.779
0.185
15.57
0.709
0.253
WaterSplatting [ 24 ]
18.19
0.593
0.301
15.25
0.655
0.318
16.15
0.814
0.182
15.02
0.716
0.203
16.15
0.695
0.251
Ours
21.84
0.677
0.249
21.04
0.727
0.274
21.16
0.899
0.104
19.12
0.802
0.131
20.79
0.776
0.190
Table 1: Quantitative comparisons on hazy scenes. The best and second-best scores are color-encoded for clarity.
Figure 3: Qualitative results on hazy scenes. Best viewed zoomed in.
Method
Crossroad
Square
Sailboat
Yard
Average
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DerainNeRF [ 25 ]
23.97
0.623
0.381
22.71
0.737
0.370
23.73
0.805
0.192
22.86
0.765
0.253
23.31
0.732
0.299
RobustSplat [ 12 ]
27.45
0.729
0.308
26.35
0.793
0.319
26.17
0.751
0.340
27.57
0.796
0.297
26.88
0.767
0.316
WeatherGS [ 39 ]
25.32
0.653
0.345
24.87
0.807
0.309
26.52
0.839
0.195
25.57
0.824
0.250
25.57
0.780
0.274
RainyScape [ 34 ]
31.01
0.851
0.154
29.44
0.883
0.152
29.62
0.851
0.147
29.43
0.820
0.166
29.87
0.851
0.154
Ours
32.15
0.893
0.189
32.13
0.914
0.145
33.19
0.921
0.109
32.18
0.889
0.116
32.41
0.904
0.139
Table 2: Quantitative comparisons on rainy scenes. The best and second-best scores are color-encoded for clarity.
Figure 4: Qualitative results on rainy scenes. Best viewed zoomed in.
Method
Bicycle
Garden
Factory
Tanabata
Average
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
DerainNeRF [ 25 ]
16.08
0.581
0.632
18.83
0.435
0.421
19.96
0.669
0.194
20.07
0.632
0.379
18.73
0.579
0.406
RobustSplat [ 12 ]
19.17
0.622
0.326
22.40
0.693
0.270
20.76
0.797
0.200
22.86
0.795
0.193
21.29
0.726
0.247
WeatherGS [ 39 ]
17.50
0.547
0.383
21.04
0.604
0.270
19.89
0.601
0.331
21.16
0.677
0.317
19.89
0.607
0.325
RainyScape [ 34 ]
19.33
0.632
0.270
23.83
0.714
0.212
22.64
0.832
0.137
23.57
0.792
0.156
22.34
0.742
0.193
Ours
20.31
0.671
0.249
24.21
0.739
0.187
24.06
0.867
0.103
24.52
0.841
0.112
23.27
0.779
0.162
Table 3: Quantitative comparisons on snowy scenes. The best and second-best scores are color-encoded for clarity.
Figure 5: Qualitative results on snowy scenes. Best viewed zoomed in.
Method
Bicycle
Garden
Factory
Tanabata
Average
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
3DGS [ 20 ]
15.71
0.473
0.370
15.86
0.588
0.327
15.28
0.681
0.240
14.30
0.500
0.392
15.29
0.561
0.332
RobustSplat [ 12 ]
15.93
0.474
0.375
15.98
0.579
0.338
15.40
0.688
0.230
14.98
0.531
0.365
15.57
0.568
0.327
WeatherGS [ 39 ]
15.96
0.489
0.367
15.65
0.574
0.469
15.75
0.509
0.416
14.88
0.531
0.430
15.56
0.526
0.420
OR [ 15 ] +3DGS [ 20 ]
17.12
0.529
0.366
20.18
0.618
0.324
23.53
0.836
0.177
19.51
0.659
0.299
20.09
0.661
0.292
Ours
19.74
0.603
0.327
22.12
0.708
0.209
24.02
0.880
0.099
23.12
0.777
0.173
22.25
0.742
0.202
Table 4: Quantitative comparisons on hybrid-weather scenes (haze, rain, and snow). The best and second-best scores are color-encoded.
Figure 6: Qualitative results on hybrid-weather scenes (haze, rain, and snow). Best viewed zoomed in.
Variant
Type
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Gaussian-Driven Extinction
Hazy
19.29
0.709
0.284
Uniform Extinction
20.55
0.749
0.211
Ours
20.79
0.776
0.190
Restored-Derived Residuals
Rainy
29.65
0.844
0.227
Ours
32.41
0.904
0.139
w/o GGS
Hybrid
21.86
0.721
0.237
Table 5: Ablation study of CSM (top block), PLM (middle block), and GGS (bottom block) under hazy, rainy, and hybrid-weather settings. The best results are marked in bold .
scene images {Iin} , initialized 3D Gaussians G ,
sampling count K , reference radius r0 ,
loss weights λr , iteration numbers Minit
(geometry initialization) and Mjoint (joint
optimization), residual refresh interval Zref .
Algorithm 1 Training of NimbusGS
Figure 7: Qualitative ablation of Particulate Layer Modeling. Best viewed zoomed in.
Figure 8: Qualitative ablation of Continuous Scattering Modeling.
Figure 9: Qualitative ablation of Geometry-Guided Gradient Scaling. Best viewed zoomed in.
Variant
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
w/o Depth
21.98
0.731
0.214
w/o Projected Radius
22.14
0.733
0.209
w/o Reconstruction Error
22.09
0.729
0.211
Ours
22.25
0.742
0.202
Table 6: Factor-wise ablation of GGS. Best results are marked in bold .
Variant
PSNR↑
SSIM↑
LPIPS↓
w/o LDCP
17.32
0.610
0.233
w/ LDCP (stage 2)
20.92
0.718
0.220
w/o LTV
22.17
0.735
0.211
Ours
22.25
0.742
0.202
Table 7: Ablation of loss terms. Best results are marked in bold .
Minit
Bicycle
Garden
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
1K
17.69
0.521
0.408
20.64
0.651
0.280
2K
18.01
0.573
0.345
21.75
0.679
0.256
4K
19.74
0.603
0.327
22.12
0.708
0.209
10K
19.16
0.593
0.335
22.09
0.703
0.237
15K
19.24
0.591
0.334
22.07
0.702
0.241
Table 8: Ablation of geometry-initialization iteration count. Best results are marked in bold .
Method
Params.
Memory
Training
FPS
3DGS [ 20 ]
94.1M
5.3G
29min
171
SeaSplat [ 49 ]
29.4M
5.1G
126min
169
WaterSplatting [ 24 ]
38.9M
5.4G
19min
32
RainyScape [ 34 ]
86.8M
8.3G
169min
167
RobustSplat [ 12 ]
81.0M
8.9G
29min
168
WeatherGS [ 39 ]
108.0M
19.9G
28min
159
Table 9: Model complexity and runtime comparison under the H+R+S setting. Params., Memory, Training, and FPS denote parameter count, training memory usage, training time, and rendering speed, respectively.
Method
H+R
Stump
Wine
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
3DGS [ 20 ]
17.31
0.572
0.335
15.09
0.551
0.368
SeaSplat [ 49 ]
16.36
0.533
0.368
12.77
0.531
0.367
WaterSplatting [ 24 ]
17.49
0.538
0.340
14.45
0.518
0.305
DerainNeRF [ 25 ]
17.39
0.569
0.332
15.10
0.543
0.387
Table 10: Quantitative comparisons on the additional Stump and Wine scenes. The three blocks correspond to the H+R, H+S, and R+S settings. The best and second-best scores are color-encoded for clarity.
Method
Bicycle
Garden
Factory
Tanabata
Average
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
3DGS [ 20 ]
15.24
0.491
0.370
15.95
0.530
0.376
13.90
0.534
0.406
13.58
0.445
0.428
14.66
0.500
0.395
SeaSplat [ 49 ]
15.48
0.523
0.354
13.56
0.558
0.359
14.64
0.621
0.329
14.58
0.564
0.324
14.56
0.566
0.341
WaterSplatting [ 24 ]
16.69
0.537
0.360
17.42
0.592
0.312
14.71
0.602
0.307
14.45
0.518
0.309
15.81
0.562
0.322
DerainNeRF [ 25 ]
16.10
0.499
0.401
16.27
0.556
0.350
14.29
0.583
0.372
14.31
0.503
0.407
15.24
0.535
0.382
RainyScape [ 34 ]
16.66
0.504
0.387
18.22
0.653
0.267
14.75
0.642
0.268
14.65
0.527
0.306
16.07
0.581
0.307
Table 11: Quantitative comparisons on H+R scenes. The best and second-best scores are color-encoded for clarity.
Method
Bicycle
Garden
Factory
Tanabata
Average
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
3DGS [ 20 ]
17.19
0.554
0.327
14.21
0.507
0.411
13.87
0.601
0.282
15.16
0.615
0.261
15.10
0.569
0.320
SeaSplat [ 49 ]
15.73
0.525
0.348
14.66
0.513
0.400
13.98
0.626
0.247
15.18
0.625
0.339
14.88
0.572
0.333
WaterSplatting [ 24 ]
16.47
0.530
0.325
14.10
0.512
0.422
14.42
0.613
0.276
15.37
0.623
0.251
15.09
0.569
0.318
DerainNeRF [ 25 ]
17.12
0.558
0.331
14.32
0.576
0.378
14.12
0.611
0.279
15.16
0.617
0.288
15.18
0.590
0.319
RainyScape [ 34 ]
17.33
0.567
0.256
14.52
0.600
0.369
14.08
0.631
0.241
15.75
0.641
0.211
15.42
0.609
0.269
Table 12: Quantitative comparisons on H+S scenes. The best and second-best scores are color-encoded for clarity.
Method
Bicycle
Garden
Factory
Tanabata
Average
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
3DGS [ 20 ]
19.25
0.590
0.332
23.39
0.714
0.245
18.29
0.685
0.306
22.79
0.765
0.241
20.93
0.688
0.281
DerainNeRF [ 25 ]
18.37
0.533
0.369
23.12
0.712
0.295
18.62
0.675
0.297
22.89
0.762
0.255
20.75
0.670
0.304
RainyScape [ 34 ]
19.57
0.614
0.285
24.25
0.729
0.216
22.12
0.805
0.127
24.07
0.808
0.117
22.50
0.739
0.186
RobustSplat [ 12 ]
19.56
0.588
0.348
23.70
0.718
0.271
18.99
0.701
0.295
22.86
0.785
0.244
21.27
0.698
0.289
WeatherGS [ 39 ]
17.47
0.539
0.413
20.71
0.618
0.442
19.11
0.562
0.364
22.01
0.733
0.243
19.82
0.613
0.365
Table 13: Quantitative comparisons on R+S scenes. The best and second-best scores are color-encoded for clarity.
Figure 10: Qualitative comparisons on single-weather scenes (haze, rain, snow).
Figure 11: Qualitative comparisons on hybrid-weather scenes (H+R, H+S, R+S, H+R+S). Best viewed zoomed in.
Although image deraining has advanced substantially, existing methods mainly focus on 2D image restoration. As spatial intelligence applications such as embodied AI and autonomous driving continue to emerge, reconstructing clean 3D scenes from sparse rainy views in a feed-forward manner becomes increasingly important. Existing feed-forward 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) methods often assume clean inputs and collapse under rainy conditions. To this end, we present DerainSplat, a feed-forward framework that reconstructs clean 3D scenes from only a few rainy views. To support this task, we build a large-scale multi-view derain dataset through a four-stage synthesis pipeline that sequentially models overcast illumination, depth-dependent haze, rain streaks, and lens raindrops, producing privileged weather factors. We introduce a weather net that predicts the weather factors from rainy context and yields two support maps. Scene support modulates cross-view cost-volume matching, while radiance support drives depth-aligned appearance fusion to fill corrupted pixels. The derived geometry evidence further attenuates Gaussian opacity to reduce spurious structures. A rainy cycle consistency re-renders clean views using the predicted factors and aligns them with rainy inputs. Extensive experiments show that DerainSplat outperforms existing methods on various datasets, including RealEstate10K, ACID, Mip-NeRF360, and real-world rainy scenes, with strong cross-dataset generalization.
Fuzhen Jiang, Changyue Shi, Chuxiao Yang +3
Hangzhou Dianzi University · School of AI for Science, Peking University
Multi-view 3D reconstruction has achieved remarkable progress with the advent of feed-forward 3D reconstruction models. However, these models are typically trained and evaluated under ideal, degradation-free imaging conditions, whereas real-world observations often contain degradations that differ significantly from such settings. Improving robustness for multi-view 3D reconstruction under degraded conditions therefore remains an important challenge. We present Geometry-Aware Representation Denoising (GARD), a novel framework that performs diffusion-based multi-view restoration directly in the feature space of a feed-forward 3D reconstruction model. This design exploits the geometry-aware feature representations of the 3D reconstructor to effectively recover accurate scene geometry. Furthermore, by employing an additional RGB image decoder, the refined representations can also be used to restore high-quality RGB images, thereby enabling the simultaneous recovery of 3D scene geometry and high-quality imagery. Comprehensive experiments on the Depth Anything 3 (DA3) benchmark demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed GARD framework.
Sparse-view 3D reconstruction is essential for modeling scenes from casual captures, but remain challenging for non-generative reconstruction. Existing diffusion-based approaches mitigates this issues by synthesizing novel views, but they often condition on only one or two capture frames, which restricts geometric consistency and limits scalability to large or diverse scenes. We propose AnyRecon, a scalable framework for reconstruction from arbitrary and unordered sparse inputs that preserves explicit geometric control while supporting flexible conditioning cardinality. To support long-range conditioning, our method constructs a persistent global scene memory via a prepended capture view cache, and removes temporal compression to maintain frame-level correspondence under large viewpoint changes. Beyond better generative model, we also find that the interplay between generation and reconstruction is crucial for large-scale 3D scenes. Thus, we introduce a geometry-aware conditioning strategy that couples generation and reconstruction through an explicit 3D geometric memory and geometry-driven capture-view retrieval. To ensure efficiency, we combine 4-step diffusion distillation with context-window sparse attention to reduce quadratic complexity. Extensive experiments demonstrate robust and scalable reconstruction across irregular inputs, large viewpoint gaps, and long trajectories.
Yutian Chen, Shi Guo, Renbiao Jin +7
Shanghai AI Lab · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · The University of Hong Kong +2