Single-image novel view synthesis (NVS) enables photorealistic rendering of un- observed viewpoints from a single input. Practical NVS systems require two key capabilities: robust reconstruction of occluded regions and high inference effi- ciency. While hybrid decoupled frameworks combining feedforward 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) and diffusion models show promise for large-view-deviation NVS, they suffer from capacity competition: a fixed number of Gaussians forces resource shifts from visible to newly disoccluded areas, degrading original scene fidelity when the target view deviates significantly from the input. To address this, we propose Spackle, a lightweight residual learning framework that mit- igates capacity competition without sacrificing efficiency. Spackle operates in three stages: predicting base 3DGS attributes from given views, automatically identifying poorly reconstructed regions, and learning a residual 3DGS optimized exclusively for these areas. At inference, we combine the baseline and aug- mented Gaussians for NVS. We conduct comprehensive experiments and show that Spackle achieves state-of-the-art performance on large-view-deviation cases.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of single-image NVS paradigms. (a) Feed-forward 3DGS is efficient and preserves visible regions but leaves disoccluded regions unfilled. (b) Decoupled framework inpaints disoccluded regions but suffers from capacity competition. (c) Our residual-learning framework mitigates capacity competition, effectively fills disoccluded regions, and preserves visible regions while maintaining computational efficiency.
Figure 2: Overview of the Spackle module. The frozen baseline 3DGS model renders RGB, depth, opacity, and a binary mask for the target novel view. During training, we use ProPainter Zhou et al. (2023) to generate video inpainting pseudo targets for regions indicated by the binary mask. Spackle trains a residual 3DGS on these rendered cues to predict augmented Gaussian attributes on a fixed grid. At inference, only predictions inside the binary mask are converted into augmented Gaussians and combined with the baseline Gaussians for final NVS. This improves unseen regions that are not well reconstructed while preserving visible-region fidelity.
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison under large viewpoint changes. From left to right, each row shows the input image, the SHARP novel-view rendering with representative artifacts highlighted, and our Spackle novel-view rendering. The baseline 3DGS model uses a fixed total number of 1,179,648 Gaussians. The tag at the top-right corner of each Spackle result reports the percentage of augmented Gaussians introduced by Spackle relative to this fixed baseline Gaussian count. When the target viewpoint deviates significantly from the input camera pose, Spackle better reconstructs unseen regions that are not well reconstructed by the baseline model, while preserving the fidelity of visible regions.
Dataset
Method
S1: Disparity 0.3
S2: Disparity 0.4
S3: Disparity 0.5
CLIPIQA ↑
NIQE ↓
MUSIQ ↑
CLIPIQA ↑
NIQE ↓
MUSIQ ↑
CLIPIQA ↑
NIQE ↓
MUSIQ ↑
Middlebury
SHARP
0.3904
4.3102
58.2782
0.3913
4.2697
57.7797
0.3926
4.1992
56.8124
Spackle
0.3921
4.3127
58.1583
0.3969
4.2825
57.6487
0.4032
4.2268
56.9233
Booster
SHARP
0.4221
5.1467
55.7906
0.4314
5.1630
55.0354
0.4397
5.1894
54.6178
Spackle
0.4224
5.1466
55.7929
0.4325
5.1625
54.9989
0.4443
5.1868
54.5166
WildRGBD
SHARP
0.2782
4.3972
45.2073
0.2595
4.4207
42.3572
0.2451
4.4680
39.9257
Table 1: Quantitative Evaluation under Controlled Large-View Rendering. Three increasingly challenging novel view settings are generated by increasing disparity. Higher CLIPIQA and MUSIQ scores indicate better perceptual quality, while lower NIQE scores indicate better perceptual quality.
Dataset
S1: Disparity 0.3
S2: Disparity 0.4
S3: Disparity 0.5
SHARP HAR ↓
Spackle HAR ↓
Reduction ↑
SHARP HAR ↓
Spackle HAR ↓
Reduction ↑
SHARP HAR ↓
Spackle HAR ↓
Reduction ↑
Middlebury
0.0121
0.0011
90.47%
0.0305
0.0035
88.52%
0.0566
0.0084
85.13%
Booster
0.0036
0.0003
91.84%
0.0103
0.0006
94.51%
0.0242
0.0011
95.40%
WildRGBD
0.0503
0.0043
91.37%
0.0885
0.0166
81.29%
0.1286
0.0338
73.75%
Tanks
0.1464
0.0369
74.77%
0.2177
0.0569
73.83%
0.2794
0.0620
77.81%
ETH3D
0.0680
0.0120
82.33%
0.1181
0.0261
77.87%
0.1720
0.0406
76.41%
Table 2: Large view hole coverage evaluation on benchmark datasets. Controlled camera changes with increasing disparity expose newly disoccluded regions. We report Hole Area Ratio (HAR), defined as 1−Coverage from the rendered opacity map. Lower HAR indicates fewer remaining holes, and Reduction measures the relative HAR decrease of Spackle over SHARP.
Dataset
S1: Disparity 0.3
S2: Disparity 0.4
S3: Disparity 0.5
Added GS
Added GS (%)
Added GS
Added GS (%)
Added GS
Added GS (%)
Middlebury
3,387
0.29
8,501
0.72
15,782
1.34
Booster
1,074
0.09
3,077
0.26
7,226
0.61
WildRGBD
3,823
0.32
6,755
0.57
9,826
0.83
Tanks
33,817
2.87
50,254
4.26
64,466
5.46
ETH3D
18,663
1.58
32,382
2.75
47,105
3.99
Table 3: Efficiency and Gaussian overhead under controlled large view settings. SHARP uses a fixed base set of 1,179,648 Gaussians. Spackle adaptively introduces additional Gaussians according to the disocclusion regions. Runtime is reported as the median over datasets for each setting to reduce the influence of measurement outliers.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Middlebury
Booster
WildRGBD
Tanks
ETH3D
LLFF
Method
DISTS
LPIPS
DISTS
LPIPS
DISTS
LPIPS
DISTS
LPIPS
DISTS
LPIPS
DISTS
LPIPS
SHARP
0.0875
0.3675
0.0872
0.3076
0.0451
0.2002
0.5238
0.7392
0.3644
0.6627
0.4837
0.7154
Direct FT
0.1506
0.4447
0.1390
0.3740
0.0662
0.2414
0.5698
0.7602
0.4501
0.7261
0.6042
0.7325
Spackle
0.0874
0.3674
0.0871
0.3075
0.0451
0.2004
0.4839
0.7313
0.3318
0.6425
0.4589
0.7180
Appendix
Table 4: Quantitative comparison between SHARP, the naive decoupled framework, and Spackle. Lower is better. The naive decoupled framework directly optimizes the baseline 3DGS model with pseudo supervision, while Spackle preserves the baseline 3DGS model and trains augmented Gaussians for newly disoccluded regions.
Dataset
Method
Base GS
Aux. GS ↓
Reduction ↑
DISTS ↓
LPIPS ↓
Middlebury
Dense grid init
1,179,648
414,018.78
–
0.0874
0.3674
Mask guided init
330.65
99.92%
0.0874
0.3674
Booster
Dense grid init
431,616.00
–
0.0871
0.3075
Mask guided init
144.17
99.97%
0.0871
0.3075
WildRGBD
Dense grid init
76,800.00
–
0.0450
0.2002
Mask guided init
91.11
99.88%
0.0451
0.2004
Appendix
Table 5: Ablation on disocclusion guided sparse initialization across evaluation datasets. Compared with dense grid initialization, disocclusion guided initialization reduces the number of initialized auxiliary Gaussians while maintaining rendering quality. Base GS denotes the fixed number of Gaussians predicted by SHARP, and Aux. GS denotes the average number of initialized auxiliary Gaussians per novel view.
Dataset
Setting
Added GS
Added GS (%)
Merged GS
SHARP Time
Spackle Time
Time Overhead
SHARP FPS
Spackle FPS
n
Middlebury
S1
3,387
0.29
1,183,035
6410.3
1449.4
-3.3%
0.671
0.691
23
S2
8,501
0.72
1,188,149
1448.8
1452.7
0.8%
0.695
0.689
23
S3
15,782
1.34
1,195,430
1448.4
1476.4
2.5%
0.695
0.679
23
Booster
S1
1,074
0.09
1,180,722
1427.8
1451.4
1.9%
0.703
0.691
228
S2
3,077
0.26
1,182,725
1427.6
1456.1
2.3%
0.703
0.689
228
S3
7,226
0.61
1,186,874
1427.9
1471.6
3.3%
0.703
0.682
228
Appendix
Table 6: Expanded efficiency and Gaussian overhead analysis under controlled large view settings. SHARP uses a fixed base set of 1,179,648 Gaussians. Spackle adds auxiliary Gaussians according to the disocclusion regions. The parameter overhead is constant across settings: SHARP has 702.31M parameters, while Spackle has 710.32M parameters, introducing 8.02M additional parameters, corresponding to 1.14%. Time is measured in milliseconds, and FPS denotes rendering throughput. A negative time overhead indicates that Spackle is faster than SHARP in the corresponding aggregated entry, which can occur due to runtime measurement outliers.
Figure 4: Additional qualitative analysis of directly applying generated supervision to the baseline 3DGS model under large viewpoint changes. From left to right, each row shows the input image, the SHARP rendering, our Spackle rendering, the rendering from the naive decoupled framework, and the detected occluded regions. The naive decoupled framework can reduce some missing regions, but it often introduces noticeable appearance degradation in already reliable areas. In contrast, Spackle keeps the baseline 3DGS model frozen and introduces augmented Gaussians for newly disoccluded regions, preserving the main scene appearance while improving hole completion.
Sparse-view novel view synthesis (NVS) is essential for AR/VR and real-time communication applications, yet remains challenging when reconstructing 3D scenes from limited viewpoints. While 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) excels in dense-view scenarios, it suffers from overfitting and geometry degradation under sparse inputs. Current approaches often tackle these problems from a local perspective, addressing either data quality or training regularization individually, lacking a unified and interpretable framework for systematic improvement. We introduce a new perspective that reframes sparse-view 3DGS from a few-shot learning viewpoint, treating each Gaussian primitive as a neuron and leveraging deep learning regularization techniques. Under this unified framework, our approach generates more effective supervision from scarce observations through two strategies: (1) data-related supervision enrichment via optical flow-guided pseudo-view synthesis and joint camera-scene optimization; and (2) training-time regularization via motion-aware dropout and early stopping, which suppress overfitting while preserving dynamic-scene stability. Extensive experiments on the SIGGRAPH Asia 2025 volumetric video challenge sparse-view dataset demonstrate significant improvements over state-of-the-art optimization-based and feed-forward baselines. Our system won first place in the sparse-view track of the SIGGRAPH Asia 2025 challenge.
Lejia Ye, Bin Wu, Jingjing Gao +2
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Sun Yat-sen University, China
Generating photorealistic novel views from unposed images requires both 3D geometric understanding and the ability to synthesize unseen content. A natural strategy combines feed-forward 3DGS reconstruction with multi-view diffusion. Yet prior pipelines extract at most one signal from the reconstruction, either pixel rendering or learned features, while none exploits per-Gaussian visibility for occlusion-aware reference selection. This information disconnect leaves renderable geometry, visibility cues, and learned features unused. SplatGuide closes this disconnect by reusing a single 3DGS scene across three complementary roles. Rendered images provide pixel-aligned geometric conditioning. Per-Gaussian source-view indices are rendered into a target-view voting map for occlusion-aware reference selection. Reconstruction tokens supply feature-level guidance via cross-attention. All three signals derive from the same reconstruction forward pass. Across RealEstate10K, DL3DV, Tanks-and-Temples, and Mip-NeRF 360, SplatGuide achieves state-of-the-art pose-free novel view synthesis. On RealEstate10K, with a moderate number of input views, it surpasses the ground-truth-pose baseline.
Yejun Zhang, Zihan Wang, Xu Ji +8
Aalto University, Finland · Deep Render, UK · ELLIS Institute Finland +3
We present ViewSplat, a view-adaptive 3D Gaussian splatting network for novel view synthesis from unposed images. While recent feed-forward 3D Gaussian splatting has significantly accelerated 3D scene reconstruction by bypassing per-scene optimization, a fundamental fidelity gap remains. We attribute this gap to the limited capacity of single-step feed-forward networks to regress static Gaussian primitives that satisfy all viewpoints. To address this limitation, we shift the paradigm from static primitive regression to view-adaptive splatting. Instead of a rigid Gaussian representation, our pipeline learns a view-adaptive latent representation. Specifically, ViewSplat initially predicts base Gaussian primitives alongside the weights of scene-conditioned View MLPs. During rendering, these MLPs take target-view coordinates as input and predict view-dependent residual updates for each Gaussian attribute (i.e., 3D position, scale, rotation, opacity, and color). This mechanism, which we term view-adaptive splatting, allows each primitive to rectify initial estimation errors, effectively capturing high-fidelity appearances. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ViewSplat achieves state-of-the-art fidelity while maintaining fast inference and real-time rendering; our large backbone variant runs at 15 FPS during inference and 90 FPS during rendering. Our project page is available at https://cvlab-uos.github.io/ViewSplat.
Moonyeon Jeong, Seunggi Min, Suhyeon Lee +1
University of Seoul · Korea Electronics Technology Institute