Selecting informative camera views is critical for efficient training and adaptive refinement in 3D Gaussian Splatting, where each observation significantly influences model parameters. However, information-driven view-selection strategies can require repeated evaluations of expensive information-gain oracles as the number of candidate views increases. We propose LiTe-GS, an oracle-efficient method for next best view selection in 3D Gaussian Splatting. LiTe-GS reduces the number of information-oracle evaluations by performing randomized subset evaluation of candidate views rather than exhaustively scoring the full candidate pool. The resulting approach achieves expected O(Mlog(1/ε)) oracle complexity with respect to the number of candidate views M, independent of the selection cardinality K, while providing an explicit trade-off between oracle efficiency and approximation quality through ε. We provide theoretical guarantees on oracle complexity and approximation performance under the proposed selection scheme. Experiments on Blender and Mip-NeRF 360 demonstrate that LiTe-GS maintains reconstruction quality comparable to Fisher-information-based baselines while substantially reducing the number of Fisher-oracle evaluations across different acquisition settings.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Setup 1: Qualitative comparison of rendered images on the Blender dataset. Results obtained using Random sampling, POP-GS [ 34 ] , and LiTe-GS are shown alongside the corresponding ground-truth images.
Figure 2: Overview of the LiTe-GS pipeline. Given a small set of seed views, we first build an initial 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) reconstruction and define a pool of M candidate viewpoints. We then perform iterative view selection ( K views) to refine the reconstruction. We compare POP-GS [ 34 ] , which evaluates the full Fisher oracle over all candidates, with LiTe-GS, which uses an ε -constrained randomized strategy that evaluates only a subset of views for efficient selection. The pipeline proceeds in four stages: seed views and initial reconstruction, candidate view generation, view selection, and final refinement using the selected views.
Figure 3: Setup 1: Qualitative comparison of rendered images on the Mip-NeRF 360 dataset. Results obtained using Random sampling, POP-GS [ 34 ] , and LiTe-GS are shown alongside the corresponding ground-truth images.
Methods
Setup 1
Setup 2
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Random
19.52
0.830
0.150
24.42
0.893
0.096
POP-GS
22.10
0.857
0.118
25.25
0.901
0.090
Ours
21.97
0.856
0.119
25.31
0.902
0.089
Table 1: Quantitative Comparison of rendered images across Blender scenes. Metrics are averaged over the three evaluated scenes.
Methods
Setup 1
Setup 3
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Random
16.71
0.381
0.461
17.68
0.414
0.437
POP-GS
17.72
0.449
0.420
18.82
0.502
0.397
Ours
17.54
0.446
0.423
19.01
0.506
0.398
Table 2: Quantitative comparison of rendered images across Mip-NeRF 360 scenes. Metrics are averaged over the three evaluated scenes.
Setup
POP-GS
LiTe-GS
Reductions(%)
1(Blender)
282
215
23.76
1(Mip-NeRF 360)
403
300
25.56
2
350
200
42.86
3
522
302
42.15
Table 3: Oracle efficiency comparison across different view acquisition setups. We report the number of Fisher information (oracle) evaluations for POP-GS and LiTe-GS, along with the corresponding percentage reduction achieved by LiTe-GS relative to POP-GS.
POP-GS
LiTe-GS
K
ε
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
# Oracle
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
# Oracle
Oracle Reduction
3
0.1
25.63
0.832
0.162
275
25.43
0.834
0.160
210
23.64%
4
0.1
24.63
0.823
0.164
366
25.49
0.830
0.158
209
42.90%
6
0.1
25.45
0.830
0.154
549
25.07
0.820
0.160
208
62.11%
0.3
24.62
0.824
0.160
108
80.42%
0.6
23.75
0.811
0.169
44
91.99%
Table 4: Effect of selection cardinality K and approximation parameter ε on oracle efficiency and reconstruction quality on Blender (Ship scene). The first three rows fix ε=0.1 and vary K ; the last three rows fix K=6 and vary ε .
LiTe-GS
SSG
ε
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
0.60
24.35
0.819
0.166
22.11
0.805
0.181
0.40
24.18
0.816
0.168
24.11
0.821
0.166
0.25
25.04
0.823
0.162
25.40
0.829
0.158
0.20
25.47
0.827
0.159
25.17
0.832
0.158
0.10
25.49
0.830
0.158
25.38
0.829
0.158
Table 5: Effect of dynamic randomized resampling on the Blender (Ship scene). LiTe-GS dynamically resamples candidate subsets at each acquisition step, whereas Static-Subset Greedy (SSG) uses a fixed subset sampled once per stage. Both use the same subset size determined by ε . The training protocol follows Setup 4 with K=4 .
LiTe-GS
SSG
ε
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
0.60
20.42
0.563
0.407
19.82
0.533
0.437
0.50
20.37
0.558
0.406
20.25
0.548
0.433
0.40
20.33
0.558
0.406
20.17
0.541
0.436
0.25
20.50
0.555
0.408
19.92
0.555
0.410
Table 6: Effect of dynamic randomized resampling on the Mip-NeRF 360 (Garden scene). LiTe-GS dynamically resamples candidate subsets at each acquisition step, whereas Static-Subset Greedy (SSG) uses a fixed subset sampled once per stage. Both use the same subset size determined by ε . Training is initialized with two images, followed by three images added at each acquisition step until reaching 11 images; each stage uses 300v training iterations, for a total of 78,00 iterations.
Next-best-view planning selects camera or sensor viewpoints that gather useful evidence while balancing coverage, reconstruction quality, and motion cost.
Radiance fields need hundreds of views, and their placement matters as much as their number. Next-best-view (NBV) selection for 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) usually scores every candidate in the pool and keeps one. Searching for information and choosing a camera, however, are separable problems. We present AGILE-GS, an anchor-guided NBV method that separates the two. A virtual anchor pose is optimized on SE(3) by Riemannian gradient ascent on expected information gain. It need not be reachable or in the pool; it marks where the model is most uncertain. Candidates are scored against the anchor's viewing geometry, and a greedy ridge-leverage step distills the pool into a small, non-redundant shortlist without rendering any candidate. The shortlist can be used in two ways. AGILE-GS takes the first view on it as the next view, so no Fisher information is computed for any candidate. AGILE-GS+ computes the Fisher information gain of each shortlisted view and picks the best, so the expensive evaluation runs on a handful of views rather than the whole pool. On standard benchmarks and in closed-loop embodied acquisition, both match or exceed existing baselines while cutting selection latency by one to two orders of magnitude.
Amirhossein Mollaei Khass, Nader Motee
Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mechanics, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, 18015, USA
3D Gaussian splatting (3DGS) is a strong representation for real-time novel-view synthesis, but its standard training pipeline relies on point estimates and hand-tuned heuristics, providing no native uncertainty or principled complexity control. This is most limiting under sparse views or fixed acquisition budgets, where a model must identify weakly supported geometry and select informative views. We introduce a rendering-aware Bayesian 3DGS framework that tracks Gaussian geometry with a Normal-Inverse-Wishart posterior over means and covariances using renderer-derived surrogate summaries. An optional Dirichlet-process extension adds a probabilistic component-usage signal, and the training schedule makes the closed-form versus approximate inference boundary explicit. Re-rendering posterior geometry samples yields native predictive uncertainty for interval calibration and active view selection. In a fixed-budget 16-to-32 active-view task, native NIW acquisition improves PSNR by +0.453 dB and LPIPS by -0.0146 over a scoring-only 3-member standard-ensemble baseline, winning 29/39 scene-seed pairs and 10/13 scene means; it also improves over PPU-style (+0.355 dB) and NIW-proxy (+0.401 dB) acquisition. NIW native intervals reduce 95% coverage error by about 17x relative to a shared proxy (0.046 vs. 0.796) and are about 10x closer to nominal coverage than a 3-member deep ensemble (0.047 vs. 0.454) at roughly one-third the training cost. As a reconstruction compatibility check, paired NIW-vs-standard analysis over 39 scene-seed runs yields +0.030 dB PSNR with 1.6% additional training time. These results position Bayesian 3DGS as a practical probabilistic scene representation for decision-facing tasks such as active view selection.
Gaoxiang Jia, Vikram Appia, Junzhou Huang +1
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. · Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering University of Texas at Arlington · Dept. of Mathematics & Division of Data Science University of Texas at Arlington
We propose Self-Augmented Residual 3D Gaussian Splatting (SA-ResGS), a novel framework to stabilize uncertainty quantification and enhancing uncertainty-aware supervision in next-best-view (NBV) selection for active scene reconstruction. SA-ResGS improves both the reliability of uncertainty estimates and their effectiveness for supervision by generating Self-Augmented point clouds (SA-Points) via triangulation between a training view and a rasterized extrapolated view, enabling efficient scene coverage estimation. While improving scene coverage through physically guided view selection, SA-ResGS also addresses the challenge of under-supervised Gaussians, exacerbated by sparse and wide-baseline views, by introducing the first residual learning strategy tailored for 3D Gaussian Splatting. This targeted supervision enhances gradient flow in high-uncertainty Gaussians by combining uncertainty-driven filtering with dropout- and hard-negative-mining-inspired sampling. Our contributions are threefold: (1) a physically grounded view selection strategy that promotes efficient and uniform scene coverage; (2) an uncertainty-aware residual supervision scheme that amplifies learning signals for weakly contributing Gaussians, improving training stability and uncertainty estimation across scenes with diverse camera distributions; (3) an implicit unbiasing of uncertainty quantification as a consequence of constrained view selection and residual supervision, which together mitigate conflicting effects of wide-baseline exploration and sparse-view ambiguity in NBV planning. Experiments on active view selection demonstrate that SA-ResGS outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in both reconstruction quality and view selection robustness.
Kim Jun-Seong, Tae-Hyun Oh, Eduardo Pérez-Pellitero +1