Learning-based Gaussian image initializers can require costly supervision obtained by per-image optimization. We investigate whether the Pseudo-PPM targets used by Instant GaussianImage can be replaced by classical image gradients. Our framework uses normalized Sobel maps in two tracks. A training-free analytic initializer combines probability boosting, parallel grid-based sampling, and geometric processing, producing initial parameters in 0.32 seconds on average. A neural initializer is trained on DIV2K with online Sobel supervision, which removes offline target optimization and allows training to scale to 10,000 LSDIR images without additional preprocessing. Both tracks achieve competitive long-budget reconstruction on Kodak and DIV2K. Under domain shift, the DIV2K-trained neural initializer surpasses Instant-GI on Manga109 from 500 fitting iterations onward (by 1.40 dB at 5K iterations), and training on LSDIR increases this margin to 1.85 dB. On Kvasir-SEG, the training-free analytic initializer exceeds Instant-GI at every reported budget. A controlled pipeline-time comparison yields an estimated 4.9× reduction for DIV2K. These results establish inexpensive analytic targets as a practical alternative to optimization-derived supervision for scalable Gaussian initialization.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Cost and supervision quality are entangled. Quality of the optimized Pseudo-PPM target (DIV2K, 50K -point GaussianImage fitting) as a function of the per-image optimization budget. The generating reconstruction improves with the optimization budget ( ≈ 50s per image for the reported target-generation setting), illustrating the cost of obtaining optimized supervision. Our analytic target removes this trade-off by construction.
Figure 2: Overview of the proposed Gaussian initialization framework. Our framework supports two tracks: (Top) Neural Initialization, which trains a network to predict Gaussian parameters using the raw Sobel map as an online training target (Eq. 5 ), and (Bottom) Analytic Initialization, which provides a training-free approach via probability boosting and parallel grid-based sampling. Unlike prior work, both tracks enable online target generation, eliminating the need for expensive pre-optimization.
Figure 3: Visualization of Gradient-Driven Probability Map Generation. We compute an analytic probability map from Sobel gradient magnitudes. For the analytic initialization, we further apply Bias ( δ ), Gamma Correction ( γ ), and Boosting to ensure coverage. The gradient structure serves as a dense supervisory signal for network training, eliminating offline target optimization.
Figure 4: Comparison of Floyd-Steinberg (FS) dithering and the proposed Grid-based Centroidal Approximation. The illustrated settings produce different candidate counts (151 K for FS and ∼ 30 K for the proposed sampler). This image is a qualitative illustration; the matched-budget reconstruction ablation is reported separately.
N=5K
N=10K
N=43K
Method
PSNR
MS-SSIM
PSNR
MS-SSIM
PSNR
MS-SSIM
GaussianImage †
29.85
.962
32.48
.982
N/A
N/A
GaussianImage
28.53
.947
30.64
.972
38.23
.996
GI++ †
31.83
.960
35.41
.983
N/A
N/A
GI++
29.75
.954
31.69
.974
35.42
.986
Instant-GI
30.28
.958
33.41
.981
42.67
.997
Table 1: Reconstruction after 50K fitting iterations on Kodak and DIV2K at the requested point budgets N . The 43K and 77K settings correspond to the average Instant-GI counts. PSNR (dB) and MS-SSIM: higher is better. † : values reported in [ 15 ] ; other baseline rows are reproduced results. + indicates that the model is trained with 10K images of the LSDIR dataset.
Method
PSNR ↑
MS-SSIM ↑
#pts( K )
GI
28.81
.992
199.4
Instant-GI
34.89
.997
199.4
Analytic (Ours)
35.87
.996
199.6
Neural (Ours)
36.29
.996
199.3
Neural+ (Ours)
36.74
.997
198.8
Neural+* † (Ours)
36.99
.997
221.5
Table 2: Generalization on out-of-distribution data. Reconstruction quality on Manga109 (drawn art), point-matched at ∼ 199K and optimized for 5K iterations. This distribution departs from the DIV2K images on which Instant-GI’s targets are optimized. † Neural+* is point-unconstrained, listed for reference only.
Figure 5: Training Convergence and Qualitative Progression. PSNR curves and reconstructions for one DIV2K image. Random initialization (GaussianImage) is included. The plot illustrates fitting behavior on this image.
Method
100
250
500
1000
5000
Instant-GI
28.67
30.22
31.51
32.69
34.89
Analytic
20.66
24.51
28.71
32.37
35.87
Neural
24.92
29.05
31.65
33.71
36.29
Neural+
25.91
30.76
32.98
34.55
36.74
Neural+* †
29.72
32.13
33.70
34.95
36.99
Table 3: Convergence on Manga109. PSNR (dB) at increasing optimization budgets (point-matched ∼ 199K). Bold marks the best point-matched method per column; Instant-GI leads at step 100; Neural+ leads from step 250. † Point-unconstrained, reference only.
Method
100
250
500
1000
5000
Random
11.30
14.87
22.44
34.29
43.57
Instant-GI
26.35
33.81
38.50
42.14
46.18
Analytic
33.26
38.40
41.63
44.13
46.80
Neural
36.50
40.48
42.28
43.63
45.69
Neural+
36.35
40.31
42.28
43.84
45.90
Table 4: Convergence on Kvasir-SEG. PSNR (dB) at increasing optimization budgets ( 20K -point budget, all 1000 images, long side resized to 512). Kvasir-SEG provides an image-reconstruction evaluation under domain shift. Bold marks the best per column. Under this strong shift, our analytic prior already leads Instant-GI at every budget, and the neural variants lead earlier still. Random is included as a poor-initialization baseline.
Figure 6: Absolute error maps on Manga109. Our methods (Analytic, Neural, Neural+) achieve better fidelity than Instant-GI and GaussianImage. Instant-GI shows error concentrations in high-frequency regions (line art, hatching), whereas our methods maintain a consistently lower error profile.
Method
Pre-proc.
Network
Total
Instant-GI
40,000s
10,200s
50,211s
Neural (Ours)
0s
10,200s
10,211s
Analytic (Ours)
0.3s
0s
11.3s
Table 5: Pipeline efficiency on DIV2K. A controlled single-resolution sample-count comparison isolating target-generation cost: the official Instant-GI recipe uses three-resolution samples, whereas our reported model uses one. Online generation removes offline target preprocessing; its cost is included in training. Total additionally includes 11s of per-image GaussianImage fitting.
5 K iterations
Kodak
DIV2K
Method
PSNR ↑
MS-SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
MS-SSIM ↑
- GC & Bias
38.94
.991
37.17
.988
- γ Correction (GC)
39.58
.993
38.76
.995
- Bias
40.87
.996
39.15
.995
Kernel-size ( k ) = 3
40.13
.997
38.06
.997
Local Variance
39.34
.992
38.79
.994
Table 6: Analytic-initializer ablations after 5K fitting iterations on Kodak and DIV2K. GC denotes gamma correction; Bias is the additive probability offset. PSNR and MS-SSIM: higher is better.
Gamma ( γ )
PSNR ↑
MS-SSIM ↑
0.1
38.54
.997
0.2
38.59
.997
0.3
39.41
.997
0.4
40.42
.997
0.5
40.92
.997
0.6
40.95
.996
Table 7: Sensitivity to γ on Kodak after 5K fitting iterations.
Kvasir-SEG
Manga109
Method
HGC ↑
Emp. ↓
Low
HGC ↑
Emp. ↓
Low
Random
.545
.0039
.196
.593
.0020
.283
Instant-GI
.873
.0002
.117
.945
.0000
.097
Analytic
.884
.0002
.043
.929
.0001
.020
Neural
.875
.0004
.082
.946
.0003
.074
Neural+
.867
.0006
.103
.946
.0021
.063
Table 8: Direct initialization-quality diagnostics. Metrics on initialized Gaussian centers before reconstruction optimization. HGC: high-gradient coverage (fraction of top-20% Sobel-gradient energy covered by centers, ↑ ); Emp.: empty high-gradient cell ratio ( ↓ ); Low: fraction of points in low-gradient regions. These metrics characterize the initial point placement. Kvasir on all 1000 images; Manga109 on a 100-image subset (seed 42).
2D Gaussian splatting provides an efficient explicit representation for image reconstruction, but existing methods still require costly per-image iterative optimization or rely on handcrafted priors for primitive allocation. We present AIR, a self-supervised feed-forward framework that amortizes iterative Gaussian fitting into a single network pass, eliminating per-image test-time optimization. AIR adopts a stage-wise residual architecture that progressively predicts additional Gaussian primitives from reconstruction residuals, together with an explicit Stage Control mechanism that activates new primitives only in under-reconstructed regions. A Predict--Optimize--Distill training strategy stabilizes multi-stage prediction by distilling short-horizon optimized Gaussian increments back into the predictor. The stabilized predictor is then jointly finetuned across stages and equipped with an image-adaptive quantizer for compact Gaussian storage. Experiments on Kodak and DIV2K show that AIR achieves better reconstruction quality than representative Gaussian-based baselines while reducing encoding time to 160--300,ms. Code: https://github.com/whoiszzj/AIR.git
Zhaojie Zeng, Yuesong Wang, Yawei Luo +1
School of Computer Science and Technology, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China · School of Software Technology, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang
2D Gaussian Splatting has emerged as a novel image representation technique that can support efficient rendering on low-end devices. However, scaling to high-resolution images requires optimizing and storing millions of unstructured Gaussian primitives independently, leading to slow convergence and redundant parameters. To address this, we propose Structured Gaussian Image (SGI), a compact and efficient framework for representing high-resolution images. SGI decomposes a complex image into multi-scale local spaces defined by a set of seeds. Each seed corresponds to a spatially coherent region and, together with lightweight multi-layer perceptrons (MLPs), generates structured implicit 2D neural Gaussians. This seed-based formulation imposes structural regularity on otherwise unstructured Gaussian primitives, which facilitates entropy-based compression at the seed level to reduce the total storage. However, optimizing seed parameters directly on high-resolution images is a challenging and non-trivial task. Therefore, we designed a multi-scale fitting strategy that refines the seed representation in a coarse-to-fine manner, substantially accelerating convergence. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations demonstrate that SGI achieves up to 7.5x compression over prior non-quantized 2D Gaussian methods and 1.6x over quantized ones, while also delivering 1.6x and 6.5x faster optimization, respectively, without degrading, and often improving, image fidelity. Code is available at https://github.com/zx-pan/SGI.
Zixuan Pan, Kaiyuan Tang, Jun Xia +5
University of Notre Dame · Tohoku University · Leibniz-Institut für Analytische Wissenschaften – ISAS – e.V.
3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has become the method of choice for photo-realistic novel view synthesis (NVS), due to its efficiency and compelling visual quality. 3DGS represents the scene as a set of 3D Gaussians, parameterized by their position, spatial extent, and view-dependent color. Starting from an initial point cloud, 3DGS refines the Gaussians' parameters to reconstruct a set of training images as accurately as possible. Typically, a sparse Structure-from-Motion point cloud is used as initialization. Thus, in order to obtain a full scene representation, 3DGS methods rely on a densification stage. In this paper, we systematically study how initialization affects 3DGS NVS performance and geometric quality, using several densification strategies. We show that dense initialization does not lead to consistent visual improvements when paired with strong densification. Despite that, it helps in generalization to off-trajectory views and significantly improves geometric accuracy of the scenes. Our code is available at https://github.com/deivse/ivd_splat.
Ivan Desiatov, Torsten Sattler
Czech Technical University in Prague, Faculty of Electrical Engineering · Czech Technical University in Prague, Czech Institute of Informatics, Robotics and Cybernetics