Organizations: College of Computer Science, Nankai University · NKIARI, Shenzhen Futian · School of Automation, Southeast University · Advanced Ocean Institute of Southeast University, Nantong
Underwater 3D reconstruction faithfully reproduces the color shifts and visibility loss of captured views, while physical inversion may leave estimation errors in the recovered scene appearance. We formulate Underwater Scene-level Enhancement (USE) as learning a persistent, visibility-enhanced 3D scene representation from degraded multi-view underwater observations, enabling consistent enhanced rendering. Realizing USE requires both a reliable scene representation for enhancement and a consistent enhancement target without paired enhanced 3D data. Therefore, we present 3D-USE, a two-stage framework. First, the Medium Radial Basis Anchor Representation (MediumRBF) establishes a medium-aware Gaussian scene by representing water effects with shared radial-basis anchors and explicitly decomposing object and medium contributions. Based on this fixed scene representation, Appearance Transition Consensus (ATC) transfers paired 2D underwater image enhancement (UIE) knowledge into scene-global and Gaussian-local targets, avoiding direct supervision from inconsistent enhanced views. An Underwater Bilateral Appearance Field (U-BAF) then realizes these targets in Gaussian radiance and medium appearance. The scene directly renders enhanced novel views without a 2D UIE model at inference. Experiments on real underwater scenes show improved visibility and cross-view consistency while preserving reconstruction quality.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Why scene-level underwater enhancement is necessary. Physical inversion, independent view enhancement, and the absence of enhanced 3D supervision prevent a stable shared scene appearance (a-c). 3D-USE instead transfers 2D enhancement knowledge into a persistent 3D representation for consistent enhanced novel-view rendering (d).
Figure 2: Overview of 3D-USE. Stage 1 reconstructs a medium-aware Gaussian scene with MediumRBF. An offline paired-data calibrator maps captured-view UIE proposals into a common transition space, where ATC forms fixed scene-global and Gaussian-local targets. With Stage 1 frozen, Stage 2 optimizes U-BAF through the transition realized by the complete enhanced render, storing the result in object and medium appearance for novel-view rendering without a 2D UIE model.
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison of underwater scene reconstruction. Zoomed regions highlight background consistency and medium-related artifacts. 3D-USE produces cleaner scene appearance with fewer medium-induced inconsistencies.
SeaThru-4
DRUVA-20
D3
D5
Method
PSNR
SSIM
LPIPS
PSNR
SSIM
LPIPS
PSNR
SSIM
LPIPS
PSNR
SSIM
LPIPS
FPS
WaterSplatting (3DV, 2025 )
29.340
0.919
0.129
27.007
0.864
0.357
27.380
0.776
0.253
29.113
0.817
0.313
99.78
SeaSplat (ICRA, 2025 )
27.146
0.878
0.184
22.866
0.828
0.388
27.885
0.785
0.282
27.113
0.806
0.382
100.77
MarineSTD-GS (ACM MM, 2025 )
30.034
0.901
0.160
26.472
0.856
0.364
29.510
0.781
0.316
30.237
0.818
0.329
41.13
Plenodium (NeurIPS, 2025 )
30.331
0.922
0.125
27.413
0.866
0.335
28.686
0.803
0.218
29.088
0.817
0.314
91.60
3D-UIR (IEEE TIP, 2026 )
28.260
0.889
0.179
25.432
0.820
0.354
28.098
0.830
0.283
28.973
0.823
0.324
42.74
Table 1: Quantitative comparison of reconstruction performance in terms of PSNR ↑ , SSIM ↑ , and LPIPS ↓ . SeaThru-4 and DRUVA-20 report averages across scenes. Best and second-best results are bold and underlined.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of enhanced novel-view renderings across different underwater scenes. Compared with existing methods, 3D-USE achieves more balanced color correction and visibility enhancement with fewer spatial artifacts.
SeaThru-4
DRUVA-20
D3
D5
Method
UCIQE
URanker
MUSIQ
UCIQE
URanker
MUSIQ
UCIQE
URanker
MUSIQ
UCIQE
URanker
MUSIQ
wLPIPS
WaterSplatting
0.508
1.361
58.529
0.385
− 0.856
33.193
0.470
0.541
58.833
0.499
0.690
55.568
0.173
SeaSplat
0.588
1.555
54.470
0.518
− 0.186
28.252
0.504
1.007
58.251
0.442
− 0.895
40.648
0.209
Plenodium
0.503
1.058
58.370
0.395
− 0.792
34.786
0.483
0.705
60.158
0.443
0.033
52.456
0.158
MarineSTD-GS
0.522
0.918
55.890
0.447
− 0.567
39.070
0.443
0.416
56.246
0.413
− 0.117
54.424
0.216
3D-UIR
0.609
1.658
54.540
0.537
0.174
32.752
0.519
1.356
59.351
0.468
0.137
51.991
0.208
Table 2: Quantitative comparison of enhancement quality and cross-view appearance consistency using UCIQE ↑ , URanker ↑ , MUSIQ ↑ , and wLPIPS ↓ . SeaThru-4 and DRUVA-20 report scene-macro averages, while wLPIPS is the scene-macro average over all 26 scenes. Best and second-best results are bold and underlined, respectively.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Vanilla 3DGS
27.411
0.889
0.178
MLP medium
29.340
0.919
0.129
MediumRBF w/o depth
30.212
0.922
0.125
Full Model (Ours)
30.369
0.924
0.124
Table 3: Stage-1 ablation on SeaThru-4. Best and second-best results are bold and underlined.
Figure 5: Qualitative Stage-2 ablation results. Arrows highlight inconsistent enhancement in the global-only variant. The full model produces more uniform and natural results.
Method
UCIQE ↑
URanker ↑
MUSIQ ↑
Stage 1
0.518
0.784
57.500
Local only
0.562
1.394
57.831
Global only
0.614
1.491
58.402
Full Model (Ours)
0.609
1.679
59.881
Table 4: Stage-2 ablation on SeaThru-4. Best and second-best results are bold and underlined.
Figure 6: Comparison of different strategies for integrating 2D UIE priors.
IUI3
Curasao
Japanese Gardens
Panama
Method
PSNR
SSIM
LPIPS
PSNR
SSIM
LPIPS
PSNR
SSIM
LPIPS
PSNR
SSIM
LPIPS
WaterSplatting
29.330
0.891
0.206
31.701
0.951
0.114
24.732
0.892
0.120
31.598
0.941
0.076
SeaSplat
27.552
0.853
0.209
29.323
0.892
0.191
22.777
0.867
0.190
28.932
0.899
0.146
MarineSTD-GS
30.433
0.890
0.202
33.688
0.939
0.143
26.337
0.881
0.152
29.678
0.893
0.145
Plenodium
30.179
0.892
0.205
33.861
0.955
0.105
24.872
0.895
0.115
32.413
0.945
0.075
3D-UIR
28.640
0.868
0.233
30.722
0.896
0.178
23.592
0.884
0.162
30.085
0.910
0.142
Table 5: Scene-wise reconstruction results on SeaThru-4 held-out views. Best and second-best results are bold and underlined.
Figure 7: Additional qualitative comparison of underwater novel-view reconstruction. Columns correspond to Japan (Japanese Gardens), A1, A2, A3, D3, and D5. The first row shows the held-out underwater views, followed by the reconstruction results of WaterSplatting, SeaSplat, MarineSTD-GS, Plenodium, 3D-UIR, and 3D-USE.
IUI3
Curasao
Japanese Gardens
Panama
Method
UCIQE
URanker
MUSIQ
UCIQE
URanker
MUSIQ
UCIQE
URanker
MUSIQ
UCIQE
URanker
MUSIQ
WaterSplatting
0.509
1.045
57.549
0.547
1.924
66.755
0.497
1.555
56.981
0.480
0.920
52.831
SeaSplat
0.579
1.503
51.292
0.586
1.247
60.171
0.601
1.922
53.844
0.586
1.549
52.572
Plenodium
0.511
0.826
60.681
0.499
0.831
61.631
0.507
1.489
57.784
0.496
1.086
53.384
MarineSTD-GS
0.546
1.161
58.370
0.477
0.087
58.286
0.543
1.329
55.681
0.520
1.094
51.222
3D-UIR
0.597
1.558
49.705
0.593
1.258
62.398
0.621
1.925
52.173
0.623
1.890
53.886
Table 6: Scene-wise no-reference enhancement quality on SeaThru-4 held-out views. Higher is better for all metrics. Best and second-best results are bold and underlined.
Figure 8: Additional qualitative comparison of enhanced novel-view renderings. Columns correspond to IUI3, Curasao, A2, A16, D3, and D5. Rows show the corresponding underwater inputs and the results of WaterSplatting, SeaSplat, MarineSTD-GS, Plenodium, 3D-UIR, and 3D-USE.
wLPIPS ↓
Method
SeaThru-4
DRUVA-20
D3
D5
WaterSplatting
0.1565
0.1699
0.2210
0.2453
SeaSplat
0.1530
0.2189
0.2131
0.2341
Plenodium
0.1446
0.1537
0.2124
0.2398
MarineSTD-GS
0.1447
0.2309
0.2108
0.2169
3D-UIR
0.1558
0.2174
0.2376
0.2017
Table 7: Dataset-wise cross-view consistency measured by wLPIPS (lower is better). Best and second-best results are bold and underlined.
Reliable feedforward underwater 3D reconstruction remains challenging due to severe light attenuation and backscattering, which degrade visual quality and disrupt feature consistency across views, leading to inaccurate multi-view geometry. To address this issue, we propose WAT3R, a feed-forward framework for reconstructing 3D scenes directly from underwater images. By leveraging degradation adaptation as a geometry-constrained process, WAT3R integrates a lightweight neural adaptation module to flexibly account for these underwater imaging effects, thereby improving multi-view reconstruction quality. Implemented in a single forward pass, WAT3R directly and efficiently outputs pixel-aligned 3D point maps and camera poses from underwater videos, allowing a high-quality underwater 3D reconstruction. Experiments conducted on the FLSea, SQUID, and USOD10K datasets show that our method consistently outperforms state-of-the-art approaches on 3D reconstruction tasks, including multi-view/monocular depth estimation and camera pose estimation.
Jiayi Xu, Jiahao Lu, Ziqiang Zheng +4
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology · The Chinese University of Hong Kong · Peking University
Underwater scene reconstruction is essential for immersive exploration of aquatic environments, yet remains challenging due to complex participating-media effects such as absorption and scattering, as well as the limited field of view (FoV) of conventional cameras. Although combining panoramic imaging with 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) offers a promising direction for photorealistic underwater rendering, traditional 3DGS struggles with both spherical projection distortion and underwater medium degradation. In this paper, we propose \textbf{Underwater360}, a physics-informed omnidirectional 3DGS framework for underwater panoramic scene reconstruction. First, we introduce an Omnidirectional Gaussian Splatting module that performs ray casting directly in spherical camera space instead of relying on 2D projection approximations, thereby reducing geometric distortions under 360∘ FoV. Second, we design a physics-based appearance-medium modeling architecture with pose-conditioned appearance embeddings to explicitly decouple intrinsic scene radiance from depth-dependent backscatter and attenuation, enabling physically grounded scene appearance restoration. Finally, we establish a new panoramic underwater benchmark dataset containing both synthetic and real-world scenes. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Underwater360 achieves superior performance in underwater novel view synthesis and scene appearance restoration, delivering improved rendering quality and cross-view consistency in complex underwater environments. The code and datasets are released at https://github.com/SwcK423/Underwater360
Jiangbei Hu, Weichao Song, Shibo Yu +8
School of Software, Dalian University of Technology · College of Computing and Data Science, Nanyang Technological University
Underwater 3D scene reconstruction is crucial for multimedia applications in adverse environments, such as underwater robotic perception and navigation. However, the complexity of interactions between light propagation, water medium, and object surfaces poses significant difficulties for existing methods in accurately simulating their interplay. Additionally, expensive training and rendering costs limit their practical application. Therefore, we propose Tensorized Underwater Gaussian Splatting (TUGS), a compact underwater 3D representation based on physical modeling of complex underwater light fields. TUGS includes a physics-based underwater Adaptive Medium Estimation (AME) module, enabling accurate simulation of both light attenuation and backscatter effects in underwater environments, and introduces Tensorized Densification Strategies (TDS) to efficiently refine the tensorized representation during optimization. TUGS is able to render high-quality underwater images with faster rendering speeds and less memory usage. Extensive experiments on real-world underwater datasets have demonstrated that TUGS can efficiently achieve superior reconstruction quality using a limited number of parameters. The code is available at https://liamlian0727.github.io/TUGS
Shijie Lian, Ziyi Zhang, Hua Li +4
1Huazhong University of Science and Technology · 2Zhongguancun Academy · 3The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen +3