3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) allows for high-quality real-time novel-view synthesis. Since its inception in 2023, its explicit and highly configurable scene representation has been extended toward sparse-view generation, dynamic reconstruction, efficiency and compression, streaming, and simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM). Although Gaussian Splatting can provide real-time rendering, rendering an existing representation is distinct from constructing, updating, or maintaining the scene itself. In this survey, we synthesize current literature, categorize them and provide a connection of current approaches and tools towards an end-to-end pipeline. Explicitly, we categorize GS scene reconstruction into five overlapping families: single-shot generation, dynamic representations, efficiency and compression, streaming and immersive systems, and Gaussian Splatting SLAM. We distinguish render-only throughput from task-specific scene generation, update, tracking, mapping, and optimization costs, and combine controlled sparse-view benchmarking with native evaluations to identify cross-family quality, latency, memory, and update-cost trade-offs.
Figures & tables
Survey
Year
Primary organization
Distinctive emphasis
Wu et al. [ 62 ]
2024
Reconstruction, editing, downstream applications
Functional overview of 3DGS developments
Fei et al. [ 10 ]
2025
Characteristics and applications
Theoretical foundations and application taxonomy
Bao et al. [ 2 ]
2025
Optimization, applications, extensions
Technical modules, challenges, and opportunities
Bagdasarian et al. [ 1 ]
2025
Compression and compaction
Representation size and compression efficiency
Zhu et al. [ 80 ]
2024
Robotics applications and technical advances
3DGS for robotic perception and interaction
Ours
2023–2025
Five reconstruction-pipeline families
Task-specific runtime, quantitative evaluation, and deployment trade-offs
Table 1: Positioning of this survey relative to representative Gaussian Splatting surveys.
Figure 1: Overview of a Gaussian Splatting–based reconstruction pipeline. Starting from images/video (optionally RGB-D/events), the system forms pose/geometry cues, initializes Gaussians (one-shot or MVS lifting), updates/optimizes the scene representation (per-scene, online, or temporal), and rasterizes/composites to produce renders, maps, and poses. Shaded containers indicate where the five taxonomy families primarily intervene (single-shot generation, dynamic representations, efficiency/compression, streaming/immersive video, and SLAM with tracking–mapping).
Symbol
Meaning
Ii / It
Input image i (or frame at time t ).
K
Camera intrinsics matrix.
Ti=(Ri,ti)
Camera pose (extrinsics) for view i ; rotation Ri and translation ti .
π(⋅)
Camera projection function mapping 3D to image coordinates.
u
Pixel coordinate in the image plane.
G / Gt
Set of Gaussians for a static scene (or at time t ).
Table 3: Master tag schema used across the survey. Core tags are shared across all method families; family-specific tags are used only in the corresponding matrices.
Figure 2: Taxonomy of Gaussian Splatting for Real-Time Scene Reconstruction. The diagram categorizes methods into dynamic representations, single-shot generation, efficiency, streaming and immersive video, and SLAM. For a clearer chronological view and additional representative methods from each family, see Figure 3 .
Task
Unit of work
Timing boundary
Metric
Rendering
One rendered frame
Existing representation to rendered frame
rFPS
Scene generation
One fixed input-view set
Input views to Gaussian representation
Scene throughput
Dynamic / streaming
One defined update or transition
Update input to updated representation
Update throughput
SLAM tracking
One input frame
Frame input to pose estimate
Tracking FPS
SLAM mapping
One map update
Mapping input to updated map
Mapping throughput
Offline optimization
One training or optimization run
Start to completed model/checkpoint
Time / iterations
Table 4: Task-specific runtime quantities used in this survey.
Figure 3: Chronological development of representative Gaussian Splatting methods across the five survey families. Methods are positioned by publication year and primary contribution; the figure is representative rather than exhaustive.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Model-stage latency (ms) ↓ Model-stage scene/s ↑
rFPS ↑
GPU (GiB) ↓
MVSplat [ 5 ]
26.78
0.881
0.119
37.63
26.57
871.21
1.18
DepthSplat [ 63 ]
27.62
0.898
0.106
65.37
15.30
654.68
2.63
pixelSplat [ 4 ]
26.40
0.873
0.127
120.57
8.29
462.29
2.77
Table 5: Controlled comparison of single-shot Gaussian reconstruction methods on RealEstate10K [ 78 ] . All methods use the same 100 test scenes, two context views, three target views, 256×256 resolution, and an NVIDIA A100 GPU. Model-stage scene latency and scene throughput include the encoder and three target decodes, while rFPS reports decoder-only rendering.
Method
Dataset / input
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Runtime
Splatt3R [ 49 ]
ScanNet++ [ 71 ] , 2 views
–
–
–
1.10 s construction / export
InstantSplat [ 9 ]
T&T Horse [ 23 ] , 3 views
23.30
0.823
0.125
16.01 s initialization + 35.02 s optimization
Table 6: Family-specific measurements for additional single-shot and sparse-view methods. These results use different datasets and execution settings than table 5 and are not directly comparable. Runtime refers to the method-specific measured construction or optimization stages.
Method
Dataset
Schedule
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
rFPS ↑
4DGaussians [ 61 ]
D-NeRF [ 42 ]
20k
40.81
0.994
0.014 VGG / 0.006 Alex
36.03
Deformable-3D-Gaussians [ 67 ]
D-NeRF [ 42 ]
40k
41.38
0.996
0.008
–
MotionGS [ 79 ]
DyNeRF [ 27 ]
20k
–
–
–
–
Table 7: Native evaluation of dynamic Gaussian representation methods. 4DGaussians and Deformable-3D-Gaussians are evaluated on D-NeRF bouncingballs [ 42 ] ; MotionGS was evaluated on the DyNeRF flame_steak sequence [ 27 ] using its documented schedule but did not complete. Results use method-specific native evaluation procedures and are not a controlled cross-method benchmark.
Method
Dataset
Schedule
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
rFPS ↑
Octree-GS [ 43 ]
N3DV [ 27 ]
40k
30.42
0.941
0.109
–
3D-GS [ 19 ]
N3DV [ 27 ]
30k
25.01
0.933
0.165
193.46
PUP 3D-GS [ 13 ]
N3DV [ 27 ]
30k + 5k + 5k
25.42
0.930
0.185
155.15
Compact3D [ 35 ]
N3DV [ 27 ]
30k base + 5k fine-tune
25.08
0.916
0.166
–
gsplat [ 70 ]
N3DV [ 27 ]
30k
21.93
0.919
0.208
119.31
SpeedE3DGS [ 54 ]
D-NeRF [ 42 ]
30k
38.59
0.993
0.017
762.25
Table 8: Native evaluation of efficiency and compression methods. Results use method-specific training schedules. Methods evaluated on different datasets or native pipelines are not directly ranked against each other. rFPS is omitted when it is not reported by the native evaluation.
Representation
Size (MiB) ↓
Gaussians
Size reduction ↑
PSNR ↑
3D-GS [ 19 ]
75.50
319,222
–
25.01
PUP 3D-GS [ 13 ]
7.55
31,922
90.00%
25.42
Compact3D [ 35 ]
5.54
–
92.66%
25.08
Table 9: Compression results from the shared 30k vanilla 3D-GS baseline on N3DV flame_steak [ 27 ] . PUP 3D-GS and Compact3D use the same trained baseline, allowing a direct comparison of representation size and retained quality.
Method
Evaluation unit
Schedule
PSNR ↑
Operation time ↓
Transition/s ↑
rFPS ↑
IGS [ 65 ]
1 transition
100 refinement iter.
33.72
7.41 s
0.116
126.74
3DGStream [ 51 ]
37 transitions
15k init.; 150 + 100/update
27.34 / 28.18
12.63 s/update
0.079
–
GIFStream [ 26 ]
2-frame GOP
30k
28.90
2023.62 s/GOP
–
89.75
Table 10: Native evaluation of streaming and immersive Gaussian methods on N3DV flame_steak [ 27 ] . IGS and 3DGStream measure online transition updates, whereas GIFStream uses offline two-frame GOP optimization.
Method
Input
Frames
Wrapped time (ms/frame) ↓
Frames/s ↑
Trajectory error (m) ↓
Model size (MiB)
MonoGS [ 33 ]
Replica office0, RGB-D
12
2250.57
0.444
0.000082
2.14
RTG-SLAM [ 41 ]
Replica office0, RGB-D
20
884.60
1.130
0.00910
10.35
WildGS-SLAM [ 76 ]
Crowd, monocular
100
1525.64
0.655
0.00665
9.78
Table 11: Native evaluation of Gaussian SLAM systems. MonoGS and RTG-SLAM use Replica office0 [ 50 ] , while WildGS-SLAM uses a monocular Crowd sequence. Processed-frame throughput is measured over the complete wrapped run and should not be interpreted as a controlled ranking across methods.
3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has emerged as a powerful explicit representation enabling real-time, high-fidelity 3D reconstruction and novel view synthesis. However, its practical use is hindered by the massive memory and computational demands required to store and render millions of Gaussians. These challenges become even more severe in 4D dynamic scenes. To address these issues, the field of Efficient Gaussian Splatting has rapidly evolved, proposing methods that reduce redundancy while preserving reconstruction quality. This survey provides the first unified overview of efficient 3D and 4D Gaussian Splatting techniques. For both 3D and 4D settings, we systematically categorize existing methods into two major directions, Parameter Compression and Restructuring Compression, and comprehensively summarize the core ideas and methodological trends within each category. We further cover widely used datasets, evaluation metrics, and representative benchmark comparisons. Finally, we discuss current limitations and outline promising research directions toward scalable, compact, and real-time Gaussian Splatting for both static and dynamic 3D scene representation.
Seokhyun Youn, Soohyun Lee, Geonho Kim +3
Kyung Hee University, South Korea · Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea
3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) enables real-time novel view synthesis, but existing general-purpose acceleration methods suffer severe rendering quality degradation when extended to more complex, large-scale scenes. To address this issue, we propose EffGS, a more general acceleration framework that improves training and rendering efficiency while maintaining reconstruction quality comparable to or better than vanilla 3DGS across bounded and large-scale scenes. EffGS combines frequency-aware guidance, localized density control, and adaptive primitive scale modulation. First, an importance scoring mechanism combines pixel-wise reconstruction errors with a difference-of-Gaussians mask scheduled over training to provide stage-dependent spatial guidance. Second, localized densification and pruning restricts density modifications to Gaussians with valid projected footprints in the sampled views. Third, learnable per-Gaussian scale modulation adjusts effective primitive extent during optimization while retaining the Compact Box rasterization rule. Extensive experiments on bounded and large-scale scene datasets demonstrate a favorable balance between reconstruction quality, training time, and primitive count. Component ablations and matched-primitive-budget comparisons further support the effectiveness of the framework.
Changbai Li, Shuo Yang, Yichen Yang +2
Beihang University · Nanyang Technological University
Per-scene 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) enables high-fidelity rendering, but practical robotic and AR scene capture pipelines often depend on external geometric initialization (e.g., SfM point clouds or depth estimates), which can be slow and brittle in on-site deployment. We present ACEsplat, a fast per-scene optimization framework that reconstructs 3D Gaussian representations from RGB images and camera poses only, without requiring external 3D priors (e.g., precomputed SfM models or supervised depth maps). ACEsplat uses a two-stage pipeline: (1) a self-supervised scene coordinate regression (SCR) module builds an internal geometry prior within 4--5 minutes; (2) SCR features and coordinate priors are fused by a lightweight Gaussian initialization head, followed by per-scene 3DGS optimization. On static-view rendering, ACEsplat achieves 29.11 dB PSNR on Wayspots with real-time SLAM poses and 33.20 dB on Cambridge Landmarks with SfM-refined poses. On RealEstate10K sparse-view novel view synthesis, it achieves competitive image fidelity under a challenging 2-view setting. ACEsplat completes scene-specific SCR mapping and 3DGS reconstruction within 15--25 minutes on a single GPU, making it a practical RGB+pose-only solution for rapid scene setup in robotics and mixed-reality applications.
Mingkai Liu, Haohua Que, Dikai Fan +7
Peking University · University of Georgia · Infinity Robotics +3