LG-HCC: Local Geometry-Aware Hierarchical Context Compression for 3D Gaussian Splatting
Authors: Xuan Deng, Xiandong Meng, Hengyu Man, Qiang Zhu, Tiange Zhang, Debin Zhao, Xiaopeng Fan
Organizations: Harbin Institute of Technology, Peng Cheng Laboratory Shenzhen, China · Peng Cheng Laboratory Shenzhen, China · Harbin Institute of Technology Harbin, China · Harbin Institute of Technology, Peng Cheng Laboratory, Harbin Institute of Technology Suzhou Research Institute Harbin, China
Although 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) enables high-fidelity real-time rendering, its prohibitive storage overhead severely hinders practical deployment. Recent anchor-based 3DGS compression schemes reduce gaussian redundancy through some advanced context models. However, they overlook explicit geometric dependencies, leading to structural degradation and suboptimal ratedistortion performance. In this paper, we propose a Local Geometry-aware Hierarchical Context Compression framework for 3DGS(LG-HCC) that incorporates inter-anchor geometric correlations into anchor pruning and entropy coding for compact representation. Specifically, we introduce an Neighborhood-Aware Anchor Pruning (NAAP) strategy, which evaluates anchor importance via weighted neighborhood feature aggregation and then merges low-contribution anchors into salient neighbors, yielding a compact yet geometry-consistent anchor set. Moreover, we further develop a hierarchical entropy coding scheme, in which coarse-to-fine priors are exploited through a lightweight Geometry-Guided Convolution(GG-Conv) operator to enable spatially adaptive context modeling and rate-distortion optimization. Extensive experiments show that LG-HCC effectively alleviates structural preservation issues,achieving superior geometric integrity and rendering fidelity while reducing storage by up to 30.85x compared to the Scaffold-GS baseline on the Mip-NeRF360 dataset
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Trade-off between fidelity (PSNR) and rendering speed (FPS) for different methods on the BungeeNeRF dataset ( Xiangli et al., 2022 ) . Circle size denotes storage cost, where smaller circles correspond to lower storage.
Figure 2. Overview of the LG-HCC framework. Following Colmap initialization and densification, Neighborhood-Aware Anchor Pruning (NAAP) adaptively merges low-contribution anchors into salient neighbors via a local graph to ensure geometric consistency. The preserved anchors then undergo Hierarchical Geometry-Guided Context Modeling for efficient entropy coding. Finally, decoded attributes generate 3D Gaussians via learnable offsets for high-fidelity rasterization.
Figure 3. Neighborhood-Aware Anchor Pruning (NAAP) pipeline starts by constructing an anchor-based geometric graph, with nodes colored by average opacity (darker = higher). Importance scores ( ξi ) are computed via neighborhood aggregation. Low-score anchors are identified as redundant and associated with their nearest salient neighbor (Local Neighbor Preserver). Instead of direct removal, a Weighted Attribute Transformation merges attributes from pruned anchors (opacity αˉi , scaling si , offset oi ) into the nearest retained anchor, yielding fused attributes ( ϕi , Oi , Si , etc.) to preserve geometric and appearance in a compact structure.
Figure 4. This module exploits cross-level correlations by mapping Level 1 attributes to Level 2 query anchors via a deterministic mapping M to obtain the preliminary attributes Apre(2) . Then, a k -NN graph is constructed over Apre(2) to form the graph-based geometric prior Ggeo(2) . Within the GG-Conv (dashed box): (1) Geometry branch: Relative offsets Δpij query a learnable 3D weight table via trilinear interpolation to generate dynamic weights wij encoding the spatial layout. (2) Feature branch: Residual features Δfij(1) and offsets Δpij are transformed by MLP ϕ into embeddings eij . Finally, wij modulates eij to produce the local geometry-aware feature hi , which serves as the final context ai(ctx) for Level 2 entropy coding.
Figure 5. Qualitative results of the proposed LG-HCC method compared to existing three compression methods on the drjohnson (DeepBlending), train (Tank&Temples) and bicycile (Mip-NeRF360) scenes, respectively.
Datasets
Mip-NeRF360 ( Barron et al., 2022 )
BungeeNeRF ( Xiangli et al., 2022 )
DeepBlending ( Hedman et al., 2018 )
Tank&Temples ( Knapitsch et al., 2017 )
Methods
PSNR(dB) ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
size ↓
PSNR(dB) ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
size ↓
PSNR(dB) ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
size ↓
PSNR(dB) ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
size ↓
3DGS ( Bagdasarian et al., )
27.49
0.813
c0.222
744.7
24.87
0.841
0.205
1616
29.42
0.899
0.247
663.9
23.69
0.844
0.178
431.0
Scaffold-GS ( Lu et al., 2024 )
27.50
0.806
0.252
253.9
26.62
0.865
0.241
183.0
30.21
0.906
0.254
66.00
23.96
0.853
0.177
86.50
Compact3DGS ( Lee et al., 2024 )
27.08
0.798
0.247
48.80
23.36
0.788
0.251
82.60
29.79
0.901
0.258
43.21
23.32
0.831
0.201
39.43
Compressed3D ( Navaneet et al., 2023 )
26.98
0.801
0.238
28.80
24.13
0.802
0.245
55.79
29.38
0.898
0.253
25.30
23.32
0.832
0.194
17.28
Morgen. et al. ( Morgenstern et al., 2024 )
26.01
0.772
0.259
23.90
22.43
0.708
0.339
48.25
28.92
0.891
0.276
8.40
22.78
0.817
0.211
13.05
Table 1. Comparison against existing compression approaches. Our method is evaluated under two settings: a high-fidelity mode and a high-compression mode , showcasing its versatility. Cells colored Red and yellow highlight the best-performing and second-best results, respectively, for both the low-bitrate and high-bitrate regimes. All size are reported in MB.
Figure 6. Rate-Distortion (RD) performance curves. Comparison with advanced compression techniques (HAC, HAC++, Context-GS, CAT-3DGS) on the Mip-NeRF360, BungeeNeRF, and Tank&Temples datasets. LG-HCC demonstrates robust coding efficiency, maintaining the upper envelope across a wide range of bitrates.
Methods
Storage Costs (MB) ↓
Fidelity
Rendering
Positions
Features
MLPs
Others
Total
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
FPS
Vanilla EM ( Wang et al., 2024b )
5.24
8.27
0.3162
11.24
25.07
25.07
0.7391
0.2683
135
GG-Conv-based EM (two level)
4.69
4.51
0.2381
6.31
15.75
25.16
0.7415
0.2704
170
GG-Conv-based EM (three level)
4.66
6.82
0.3162
7.54
19.34
25.10
0.7416
0.2703
160
Table 2. Comparison of storage breakdown (Positions, Features, MLP, others; "others" includes auxiliary structures and metadata (e.g., scalings, offsets, masks).), and rendering FPS on the "Bicycle" scene between Context-GS (vanilla EM, i.e., Entropy Modeling) and our GG-Conv-based Hierarchical Geometry-Guided Context EM.
Method
PSNR (dB) ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
size ( MB) ↓
Ours w/o NAAP & GG-Conv
30.10
0.9062
0.2659
3.76
Ours w/o GG-Conv
30.13
0.9087
0.2656
3.72
Ours w/o NAAP
30.20
0.9095
0.2648
3.58
Ours (full)
30.31
0.9106
0.2636
3.47
Table 3. Quantitative ablation study on the Deep Blending dataset.
Method
Positions (MB) ↓
Features (MB) ↓
Vanilla Pruning
0.7531
1.1108
NAAP (Ours)
0.7689 (+2.1%)
1.0847 (-2.4%)
Table 4. Storage comparison between vanilla pruning (Context-GS ( Wang et al., 2024b ) ) and our LG-HCC method.