Feed-forward 3D Gaussian Splatting (FF-3DGS) emerges as a fast and robust solution for sparse-view 3D reconstruction and novel view synthesis (NVS). However, existing FF-3DGS methods are built on incorrect screen-space dilation filters, causing severe rendering artifacts when rendering at out-of-distribution sampling rates. We firstly propose an FF-3DGS model, called AA-Splat, to enable robust anti-aliased rendering at any resolution. AA-Splat utilizes an opacity-balanced band-limiting (OBBL) design, which combines two components: a 3D band-limiting post-filter integrates multi-view maximal frequency bounds into the feed-forward reconstruction pipeline, effectively band-limiting the resulting 3D scene representations and eliminating degenerate Gaussians; an Opacity Balancing (OB) to seamlessly integrate all pixel-aligned Gaussian primitives into the rendering process, compensating for the increased overlap between expanded Gaussian primitives. AA-Splat demonstrates drastic improvements with average 5.4∼7.5dB PSNR gains on NVS performance over a state-of-the-art (SOTA) baseline, DepthSplat, at all resolutions, between 4× and 1/4×. Code will be made available.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Overview of AA-Splat. After unprojecting per-view depth maps to obtain the 3D Gaussian centers, the maximal frequency bound of each 3D Gaussian primitive is computed from context view camera poses and focal lengths, which is then converted to its 3D band-limiting Gaussian post-filter. The GS head predicts the residual Gaussian parameters which are then post-filtered by the 3D filters to obtain the band-limited 3D Gaussians. During rendering, opacity balancing (OB) compensates for the increase in overlap between pixel-aligned Gaussian primitives for improved photometric supervision and rendering fidelity.
Figure 3: Multi-scale visual comparison on RE10K [ 44 ] . ×4 indicates rendering target views at higher resolution to simulate zoom-in effects, while ×1/4 indicates rendering target views at lower resolution to simulate zoom-out effects. Additional visualizations will be available in supplementary materials.
Figure 4: Multi-scale visual comparison of cross-dataset generalization on ACID [ 24 ] . Models trained on RE10K are directly used to test on scenes from ACID. Additional visualizations will be available in supplementary materials.
Method
PSNR (dB) ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
1/4× Res.
1/2× Res.
1× Res.
2× Res.
4× Res.
Avg.
1/4× Res.
1/2× Res.
1× Res.
2× Res.
4× Res.
Avg.
1/4× Res.
1/2× Res.
1× Res.
2× Res.
4× Res.
Avg.
MVSplat [ 7 ]
20.252
22.428
26.387
20.294
17.882
21.449
0.735
0.847
0.869
0.808
0.753
0.803
0.152
0.129
0.128
0.279
0.421
0.220
DepthSplat [ 33 ]
21.300
24.449
26.791
20.595
17.399
22.107
0.740
0.864
0.878
0.779
0.671
0.787
0.139
0.102
0.122
0.319
0.449
0.226
NoPoSplat [ 38 ]
21.367
24.786
26.755
21.808
18.809
22.705
0.739
0.871
0.878
0.821
0.755
0.813
0.126
0.095
0.126
0.266
0.362
0.195
SPFSplat [ 18 ]
21.283
24.694
27.313
21.929
18.922
22.828
0.740
0.873
0.888
0.827
0.765
0.819
0.127
0.093
0.119
0.247
0.353
0.188
SPFSplatV2 [ 19 ]
21.329
24.781
27.519
22.305
19.444
23.076
0.741
0.876
0.892
0.837
0.785
0.826
0.125
0.091
0.116
0.237
0.340
0.182
Table 1: Quantitative comparison of single-scale reconstruction and multi-scale rendering on the RE10K [ 44 ] dataset under various target resolutions. We evaluate all models by performing a single feed-forward inference under 256×256 input resolution and rendering the resulting 3D Gaussians at 1/4× , 1/2× , 1× , 2× , and 4× resolutions. Due to the absence of high-resolution ground truths in the RE10K dataset, we instead report the HRRC metrics which are computed against bicubic upsampled ground truth frames, for 2× and 4× resolutions. Red and Blue indicate the best and second-best performances, respectively.
Method
PSNR (dB) ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
1/4× Res.
1/2× Res.
1× Res.
2× Res.
4× Res.
Avg.
1/4× Res.
1/2× Res.
1× Res.
2× Res.
4× Res.
Avg.
1/4× Res.
1/2× Res.
1× Res.
2× Res.
4× Res.
Avg.
DepthSplat [ 33 ]
19.687
22.660
27.109
17.294
13.357
20.022
0.679
0.848
0.885
0.647
0.419
0.695
0.173
0.108
0.104
0.399
0.566
0.270
Ours
28.183
29.012
27.882
25.701
24.351
27.026
0.934
0.927
0.892
0.821
0.762
0.867
0.061
0.067
0.096
0.233
0.365
0.164
Table 2: Zero-shot generalization from RE10K [ 44 ] to DL3DV [ 23 ] dataset under various target resolutions. We evaluate all models by performing a single feed-forward inference with 2 context views of 256×448 input resolution and rendering the resulting 3D Gaussians at 1/4× , 1/2× , 1× , 2× , and 4× resolutions.
Method
PSNR (dB) ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
1/4× Res.
1/2× Res.
1× Res.
2× Res.
4× Res.
Avg.
1/4× Res.
1/2× Res.
1× Res.
2× Res.
4× Res.
Avg.
1/4× Res.
1/2× Res.
1× Res.
2× Res.
4× Res.
Avg.
MVSplat [ 7 ]
20.899
22.232
28.160
19.226
16.422
21.388
0.730
0.829
0.841
0.745
0.648
0.759
0.154
0.141
0.147
0.349
0.507
0.259
DepthSplat [ 33 ]
22.264
24.512
28.026
18.019
14.078
21.380
0.701
0.823
0.841
0.622
0.421
0.682
0.145
0.126
0.147
0.486
0.624
0.306
NoPoSplat [ 38 ]
22.843
25.184
27.452
21.188
18.060
22.945
0.723
0.832
0.824
0.755
0.674
0.761
0.130
0.120
0.161
0.345
0.452
0.242
SPFSplat [ 18 ]
22.532
24.814
28.077
21.217
18.155
22.959
0.725
0.842
0.841
0.765
0.688
0.772
0.129
0.115
0.131
0.311
0.435
0.228
SPFSplatV2 [ 19 ]
22.734
25.159
28.322
21.714
18.822
23.350
0.726
0.845
0.846
0.781
0.721
0.784
0.125
0.111
0.145
0.296
0.418
0.219
Table 3: Zero-shot generalization from RE10K [ 44 ] to ACID [ 24 ] dataset under various target resolutions. We evaluate all models by performing a single feed-forward inference under 256×256 input resolution and rendering the resulting 3D Gaussians at 1/4× , 1/2× , 1× , 2× , and 4× resolutions. Due to the absence of high-resolution ground truths in the ACID dataset, we instead report the HRRC metrics, which are computed against bicubic upsampled ground truth frames, for 2× and 4× resolutions. Red and Blue indicate the best and second-best performances, respectively.
Figure 5: Ablation results on the DL3DV [ 23 ] dataset. All methods are trained and inferred at full resolution and rendered at 4× resolution to mimic zoom-in. Removing either OB or 3D-BLPF causes unnatural grid-like artifacts or sharp jagged edges. Our method (AA-Splat) effectively suppresses these rendering artifacts.
Variants
PSNR (dB) ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
1/4 Res.
1/2 Res.
1× Res.
2× Res.
4× Res.
Avg.
1/4 Res.
1/2 Res.
1× Res.
2× Res.
4× Res.
Avg.
1/4 Res.
1/2 Res.
1× Res.
2× Res.
4× Res.
Avg.
(a) Baseline [ 33 ]
19.687
22.660
27.109
17.294
13.357
20.022
0.679
0.848
0.885
0.647
0.419
0.695
0.173
0.108
0.104
0.399
0.566
0.270
(b) w/o OB
28.140
27.936
26.623
24.868
23.715
26.257
0.934
0.915
0.875
0.806
0.752
0.856
0.057
0.076
0.113
0.248
0.375
0.174
(c) w/o 3D-BLPF
28.013
28.639
27.322
25.186
23.771
26.586
0.932
0.924
0.885
0.806
0.738
0.857
0.062
0.069
0.112
0.273
0.423
0.188
(d) Ours
28.183
29.012
27.882
25.701
24.351
27.026
0.934
0.927
0.892
0.821
0.762
0.867
0.061
0.067
0.096
0.233
0.365
0.164
Table 4: Ablation results on the DL3DV [ 23 ] dataset. We evaluate all variants by performing a single feed-forward inference under 256×448 input resolution and rendering the resulting 3D Gaussians at 1/4× , 1/2× , 1× , 2× , and 4× resolutions. Red and Blue indicate the best and second-best performances, respectively.
Method
PSNR (dB) ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
1/4× Res.
1/2× Res.
1× Res.
2× Res.
4× Res.
Avg.
1/4× Res.
1/2× Res.
1× Res.
2× Res.
4× Res.
Avg.
1/4× Res.
1/2× Res.
1× Res.
2× Res.
4× Res.
Avg.
MVSplat [ 7 ]
18.690
19.771
21.834
18.173
16.140
18.922
0.635
0.713
0.711
0.630
0.582
0.654
0.201
0.181
0.206
0.349
0.485
0.284
DepthSplat [ 33 ]
19.687
22.660
27.109
17.294
13.357
20.022
0.679
0.848
0.885
0.647
0.419
0.695
0.173
0.108
0.104
0.399
0.566
0.270
Ours
28.183
29.012
27.882
25.701
24.351
27.026
0.934
0.927
0.892
0.821
0.762
0.867
0.061
0.067
0.096
0.233
0.365
0.164
Table 5: Zero-shot generalization from RE10K [ 44 ] to DL3DV [ 23 ] dataset under various target resolutions. We evaluate all models by performing a single feed-forward inference with 2 context views of 256×448 input resolution and rendering the resulting 3D Gaussians at 1/4× , 1/2× , 1× , 2× , and 4× resolutions.
Figure 6: Ablation results on the DL3DV [ 23 ] dataset. All variants perform feed-forward reconstruction with 2 context views of 256×448 resolution and are rendered at 4× resolution to mimic zoom-in effects. Removing either OB or 3D-BLPF causes unnatural grid-like artifacts or sharp jagged edges. Using only the 2D Mip filter also causes grid-like artifacts. Our method (AA-Splat) effectively suppresses these rendering artifacts, enabling smooth interpolation. Best viewed zoomed-in.
Variants
2D-
3D-
PSNR (dB) ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Mip
BLPF
OB
1/4×
1/2×
1×
2×
4×
Avg.
1/4×
1/2×
1×
2×
4×
Avg.
1/4×
1/2×
1×
2×
4×
Avg.
(a) Baseline [ 33 ]
✗
✗
✗
19.687
22.660
27.109
17.294
13.357
20.022
0.679
0.848
0.885
0.647
0.419
0.695
0.173
0.108
0.104
0.399
0.566
0.270
(b) w/o OB
✓
✓
✗
28.140
27.936
26.623
24.868
23.715
26.257
0.934
0.915
0.875
0.806
0.752
0.856
0.057
0.076
0.113
0.248
0.375
0.174
(c) w/o 3D-BLPF
✓
✗
✓
28.013
28.639
27.322
25.186
23.771
26.586
0.932
0.924
0.885
0.806
0.738
0.857
0.062
0.069
0.112
0.273
0.423
0.188
(d) 2D Mip only
✓
✗
✗
28.072
28.066
27.002
25.116
23.886
26.429
0.934
0.916
0.879
0.808
0.749
0.857
0.058
0.075
0.110
0.241
0.372
0.171
(e) 3D-BLPF only
✗
✓
✗
19.812
22.698
26.967
21.554
19.162
22.038
0.708
0.861
0.884
0.795
0.717
0.793
0.160
0.102
0.106
0.256
0.400
0.205
Table 6: Additional ablation results on the DL3DV [ 23 ] dataset. We evaluate all variants by performing a single feed-forward inference under 256×448 input resolution and rendering the resulting 3D Gaussians at 1/4× , 1/2× , 1× , 2× , and 4× resolutions. Red and Blue indicate the best and second-best performances, respectively.
Figure 7: Additional multi-scale visual comparisons on RE10K [ 44 ] . All methods are trained and inferred at 256×256 resolution and rendered at 1/4×∼4× resolutions to mimic zoom-in/out effects. Best viewed zoomed-in.
Figure 8: Additional multi-scale visual comparisons of cross-dataset generalization to ACID [ 24 ] . Models trained on RE10K are directly tested on scenes from ACID. When rendering novel views at decreased sampling rates on the ACID dataset where thin foreground structures are relatively rare, aliasing artifacts in existing models primarily manifest as brightening artifacts, where scenes are rendered as being unnaturally bright.
3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) achieves high-quality novel-view synthesis by optimizing freely placed primitives in 3D and adaptively densifying them in under-reconstructed regions. However, this scene-adaptive capacity allocation is largely lost in existing feed-forward 3DGS methods, which commonly regress Gaussians at input pixels and lift them along camera rays. Such pixel-aligned formulations make the number and placement of primitives depend on image resolution and input viewpoints rather than scene complexity, resulting in dense and often redundant Gaussian sets. We present ATSplat, a feed-forward 3DGS framework that restores the adaptive allocation capability of 3DGS optimization through Adaptive 3D Tokens. ATSplat first lifts coarse patch-level depth and camera cues into sparse 3D anchor tokens, forming a compact scaffold of the scene. Each token is then regressed into local Gaussians with learnable 3D offsets, decoupling primitive placement from input image grids. An Adaptive Token Expansion module predicts a token-level uncertainty score, supervised by rendering error maps, and selectively expands high-uncertainty tokens through learnable expansion layers. This sparse-to-adaptive formulation enables ATSplat to concentrate primitives in challenging regions while maintaining a compact representation. Experiments on two representative datasets, RealEstate10K and DL3DV, show that ATSplat achieves state-of-the-art rendering quality while reducing the number of Gaussians by more than 5.7× compared with dense feed-forward 3DGS methods. From 12 input images at 512×960 resolution, ATSplat completes reconstruction in less than a second using a single commercial GPU, and renders high-quality novel views at 1136 FPS (512×960) with only 311K Gaussians.
In Cho, Jeonghwan Cho, Mijin Yoo +2
Yonsei University, South Korea · National University of Singapore, Singapore
Recent progress in feed-forward 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has notably improved rendering quality. However, the spatially uniform and highly redundant 3DGS map generated by previous feed-forward 3DGS methods limits their integration into downstream reconstruction tasks. We propose SparseSplat, the first feed-forward 3DGS model that adaptively adjusts Gaussian density according to scene structure and information richness of local regions, yielding highly compact 3DGS maps. To achieve this, we propose entropy-based probabilistic sampling, generating large, sparse Gaussians in textureless areas and assigning small, dense Gaussians to regions with rich information. Additionally, we designed a specialized point cloud network that efficiently encodes local context and decodes it into 3DGS attributes, addressing the receptive field mismatch between the general 3DGS optimization pipeline and feed-forward models. Extensive experimental results demonstrate that SparseSplat can achieve state-of-the-art rendering quality with only 22% of the Gaussians and maintain reasonable rendering quality with only 1.5% of the Gaussians. Project page: https://victkk.github.io/SparseSplat-page/.
Generalizable 3D Gaussian Splatting has recently emerged as an efficient approach for novel-view synthesis, enabling feed-forward synthesis from only a few input views. However, existing pixel-wise feed-forward methods suffer from over-bright renderings when the number of input views varies during inference, as well as insufficient supervision for accurate Gaussian scale estimation, which leads to hole artifacts, particularly in high-resolution renderings. To address these issues, we identify that the over-brightness is caused by the varying number of overlapping Gaussians and propose a simple alpha normalization strategy to maintain brightness consistency across different number of input views. In addition, we introduce an auxiliary 3D sampling-based regularizer to improve Gaussian scale estimation, thereby mitigating hole artifacts in high-resolution rendering. Experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that our method significantly improves baseline models under varying input-view and high-resolution rendering settings.
Hoang Chuong Nguyen, Renjie Wu, Jose M. Alvarez +1