3D Gaussian Splatting grows a dense scene from a sparse initialization through adaptive density control (ADC), driven by per-Gaussian statistics gathered during rendering. These statistics pass a frustum-based visibility filter blind to occlusion: fully occluded Gaussians still count as observed, diluting the averaged gradient signal and suppressing densification precisely where geometry is occluded. We correct this with an occlusion-aware filter that restricts densification statistics to views in which a Gaussian actually contributes, and replace the criterion's raw view-count normalizer with an average-contribution one. Integrated into a StopThePop-based framework, the two together improve every image-quality metric over the occlusion-blind baseline on occlusion-heavy scenes (up to 6% lower LPIPS), at less than half the Gaussians a view-count normalizer requires. Under the longer schedules these large scenes require, the count stays bounded where most criteria diverge, and on smaller benchmarks our method stays competitive at a fraction of the competitors' count.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Occlusion-aware versus frustum-based visibility filter. Showing all Gaussians in front of a camera from the Mip-NeRF360 garden scene, which (a) pass the frustum test or (b) actually contribute to the rendered image. (c) shows their difference in red.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GMSD ↓
Count ↓
Time ↓
Occlusion-blind count
25.52
0.818
0.352
0.117
0.557
22.3
Occlusion-aware count
25.75
0.834
0.319
0.103
2.567
36.6
PixelGS
25.11
0.829
0.312
0.105
6.607
67.0
PixelGS + DS
25.59
0.824
0.341
0.112
1.443
28.8
Ours
25.81
0.830
0.330
0.106
1.133
29.9
Table 1: Occlusion-aware filter and densification criteria on the occlusion-heavy Zip-NeRF scenes (Mip-NeRF360 counterpart in Tab. S12). The occlusion-blind baseline, then varying only the criterion: the occlusion-aware observation count, the PixelGS pixel-count-weighted mean without and with distance scaling (+ DS), and our average contribution. Counts are in millions of Gaussians; time in minutes.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GMSD ↓
Count ↓
Time ↓
100 k
Occlusion-aware count
25.90
0.842
0.292
0.095
4.792
178.5
PixelGS
diverges ( >16.8 M Gaussians, training crashes)
PixelGS + DS
26.35
0.843
0.302
0.094
2.843
129.5
Ours
26.48
0.847
0.295
0.091
1.890
105.6
210 k
Occlusion-aware count
diverges on 2 of 4 scenes (alameda, nyc)
PixelGS + DS
26.46
0.848
0.288
0.090
4.020
328.4
Table 2: Densification criteria on the Zip-NeRF scenes under longer schedules ( 100 k and 210 k iterations; single runs). Runs that crash from over-densification are marked as divergent. Counts are in millions of Gaussians; time in minutes.
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison on Zip-NeRF scenes (berlin, london, nyc; 30 k schedule): StopThePop [ 20 ] , our re-implementations of PixelGS [ 31 ] and Grubert et al . [ 9 ] on the StopThePop base, and our full model. The crops show the areas marked with red boxes in the test view. The state-of-the-art methods remain blurry in these occlusion-heavy scenes, while ours reconstructs fine geometry.
Dataset
Deep Blending
Mip-NeRF360
Tanks & Temples
Zip-NeRF
Metric
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
G(M) ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
G(M) ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
G(M) ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
G(M) ↓
3DGS
PixelGS †
28.95
0.892
0.250
∼ 4.6
27.53
0.822
0.191
∼ 5.5
23.83
0.854
0.151
∼ 4.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Grubert et al . †
29.63
0.902
0.240
∼ 2.3
27.71
0.824
0.193
∼ 3.3
24.18
0.860
0.149
∼ 2.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
StopThePop
STP (Reset)
29.91
0.904
0.234
2.819
27.30
0.814
0.214
3.289
23.15
0.843
0.173
1.800
25.11
0.808
0.366
0.951
PixelGS
29.54
0.901
0.234
4.392
27.37
0.822
0.190
5.328
23.27
0.852
0.147
4.175
25.15
0.811
0.360
1.980
Grubert et al .
30.05
0.905
0.232
2.209
27.59
0.824
0.192
3.263
23.78
0.858
0.146
2.231
25.27
0.812
0.360
1.131
Table 3: Comparison on Deep Blending, Mip-NeRF360, Tanks & Temples and Zip-NeRF. We list results as reported by Grubert et al . [ 9 ] ( † ) and RadSplat [ 19 ] ( ‡ ). All other results are from our own experiments on the shared StopThePop (STP) base. G is Gaussians in millions; rows are grouped by base, with RadSplat and Zip-NeRF as upper-bound references (excluded from the color scale).
Components
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GMSD ↓
Count ↓
Time ↓
Full model
25.81
0.830
0.330
0.106
1.133
29.9
+ clone
20.86
0.735
0.432
0.175
0.760
28.6
- GOF Grad
25.56
0.818
0.351
0.119
0.781
23.8
- long-axis split
25.80
0.833
0.321
0.103
1.635
29.6
- contrib prune
25.79
0.830
0.330
0.106
1.245
27.9
+ warm-up stats
25.81
0.830
0.330
0.106
1.134
26.7
Table 4: Ablation on the Zip-NeRF scenes: removing ( − ) or adding ( + ) one component relative to our full model. The catastrophic failure row (gray) is excluded from the color scale. Counts are in millions of Gaussians; time in minutes.
Appendix figures & tables28 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Count ↓
2DGS
2DGS
27.69
0.850
0.218
2.059
+ filter
27.87
0.857
0.204
2.512
+ filter + criterion ( 0.001 )
over-densifies; out of memory
+ filter + criterion ( 0.002 )
28.04
0.865
0.182
3.682
+ filter + criterion ( 0.003 )
27.89
0.855
0.204
2.184
+ filter + criterion ( 0.004 )
27.67
0.845
0.225
0.910
Appendix
Table S1 : Both ports on the Mip-NeRF360 subset of the threshold sweep (single runs, averaged over the four scenes): the vanilla base, the occlusion-aware filter alone, and the full port across the densification-threshold sweep. Shading compares within each base. Counts are in millions of Gaussians.
2DGS
3DGS
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Count ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Count ↓
alameda
Vanilla
20.90
0.689
0.456
0.630
22.28
0.728
0.400
1.216
+ filter
18.95
0.661
0.480
3.222
22.40
0.740
0.380
2.654
+ filter + crit.
20.13
0.684
0.457
1.443
22.46
0.736
0.388
1.806
berlin
Vanilla
25.79
0.865
0.359
0.556
27.10
0.886
0.326
1.024
+ filter
25.48
0.870
0.343
3.039
27.39
0.895
0.308
3.142
Appendix
Table S2 : Both ports on the Zip-NeRF scenes ( 30 k, single runs), at each port’s own densification threshold ( 0.002 for 2DGS, 0.003 for 3DGS). Shading compares within each scene and base. Counts are in millions of Gaussians.
Threshold
Densification
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Count ↓
2DGS
0.002
with clone
28.14
0.867
0.181
2.947
split-only
28.19
0.865
0.185
1.696
0.003
with clone
28.02
0.859
0.202
1.441
split-only
27.97
0.855
0.206
0.980
3DGS
0.002
with clone
28.85
0.878
0.157
6.455
split-only
28.60
0.870
0.164
5.267
Appendix
Table S3 : Isolating the clone operation on both ports, on the Mip-NeRF360 subset (single runs, averaged over the four scenes). Shading compares within each base. Counts are in millions of Gaussians.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GMSD ↓
Count ↓
Time ↓
Zip
StopThePop
24.95
0.802
0.376
0.133
0.486
24.3
Baseline
25.52
0.818
0.352
0.117
0.557
22.3
Mip
StopThePop
27.01
0.809
0.227
0.102
1.711
25.6
Baseline
27.29
0.821
0.196
0.087
2.117
31.4
Appendix
Table S4 : StopThePop [ 20 ] versus our integrated baseline (StopThePop with the adopted densification components, still occlusion-blind) on the Zip-NeRF (top) and Mip-NeRF360 (bottom) scenes (3-run averages). Counts are in millions of Gaussians; time in minutes.
Components
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GMSD ↓
Count ↓
Time ↓
StopThePop
24.95
0.802
0.376
0.133
0.486
24.3
+ contributions
23.03
0.776
0.393
0.148
1.099
26.6
+ extent
25.06
0.809
0.365
0.127
0.564
20.1
+ contributions + extent
25.55
0.824
0.341
0.114
1.303
27.0
+ split-only
25.19
0.808
0.366
0.129
0.570
19.7
+ contributions + split-only
25.63
0.822
0.343
0.115
1.212
25.2
Appendix
Table S5 : Complete clone-fix ablation on the Zip-NeRF scenes (3-run averages): StopThePop plus our two contributions and/or one clone fix—split-only densification or the manual scene-extent override of Sec. 0.C.1 . The catastrophic failure row (gray) is excluded from the color scale. Counts are in millions of Gaussians; time in minutes.
Figure S1 : The clone failure mode on a nyc test view ( 30 k schedule; one of the three ablation runs). Top row: StopThePop ( 25.5 dB) reconstructs the view, then + contributions collapses it into scene-covering floater clusters ( 12.3 dB). Bottom row: + split-only behaves like StopThePop ( 25.7 dB), then + contributions + split-only resolves the view best ( 28.5 dB). Insets (bottom): our contributions recover the individual keyboard keys and near-legible on-screen text that split-only densification alone leaves blurred.
Dataset
Occlusion
Scene range
Train views
Zip-NeRF [ 2 ]
0.630
0.568 – 0.700
1336
Tanks & Temples [ 16 ]
0.482
0.388 – 0.577
241
Mip-NeRF360 [ 1 ]
0.194
0.090 – 0.342
189
Deep Blending [ 11 ]
0.145
0.083 – 0.208
214
Appendix
Table S6 : Occlusion rate ( Eq. S6 ) per dataset, averaged over five trained models and all training views. The range gives the minimum and maximum over the dataset’s scenes. Training views are averages.
Dataset
Scene
Occlusion
LPIPS base
Δ LPIPS
Deep Blending
playroom
0.083
0.2291
−0.0037 ( −1.6% )
Mip-NeRF360
room
0.089
0.2062
+0.0047 ( +2.3% )
Mip-NeRF360
kitchen
0.144
0.1253
+0.0074 ( +5.9% )
Mip-NeRF360
bicycle
0.146
0.1797
+0.0015 ( +0.8% )
Mip-NeRF360
stump
0.178
0.1910
+0.0062 ( +3.3% )
Mip-NeRF360
garden
0.179
0.1029
+0.0063 ( +6.1% )
Appendix
Table S7 : Per-scene occlusion rate against the LPIPS improvement of our two contributions over the occlusion-blind baseline. Δ LPIPS is the improvement of ours. Sorted by occlusion rate.
Method
G(M)
Occluded
Share
Zip
StopThePop (Reset)
0.951
149k
15.7%
StopThePop (Decay)
0.486
50.9k
10.5%
PixelGS [ 31 ]
1.980
449k
22.7%
Grubert et al . [ 9 ]
1.131
156k
13.8%
Ours (no contribution prune)
1.245
89.1k
7.2%
Ours (Reset)
1.991
0
0%
Appendix
Table S8 : Fully occluded Gaussians (those that never contribute to any training view) in each method’s reported model, on the Zip-NeRF (top) and Mip-NeRF360 (bottom) scenes (3-run averages). The occlusion-blind methods carry substantial dead weight, up to 23% on the occlusion-heavy scenes. Our contribution prune removes them during training, so the final models contain none.
Threshold
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GMSD ↓
Count
0.001
27.98
0.864
0.162
0.077
4.90
0.0015
28.25
0.874
0.157
0.073
2.75
0.002
28.31
0.875
0.160
0.073
1.79
0.0025
28.24
0.874
0.166
0.074
1.30
0.004
28.16
0.865
0.191
0.076
0.66
Appendix
Table S9 : Threshold calibration of our criterion on the Mip-NeRF360 calibration subset (bicycle, bonsai, counter, garden), single runs, using our full integrated configuration: the occlusion-aware filter, the average-contribution criterion, and the adopted densification components. Our operating point 0.002 (bold) attains the best PSNR, SSIM, and GMSD of the sweep; over- and under-densification degrade quality on either side. Counts are in millions of Gaussians.
Floor
Threshold
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GMSD ↓
Count
0
0.002
diverges on 4/4 scenes; peak 17.7 – 21.0 M by iteration ∼1,800
0
0.004
diverges on 4/4 scenes; peak 17.4 – 20.1 M by iteration ∼2,300
0
0.01
diverges on 4/4 scenes; peak 17.2 – 17.9 M by iteration ∼5,000
0
0.02
diverges on 3/4 scenes; berlin completes at 2.00 M
0
0.03
25.15
0.803
0.369
0.123
1.63
0
0.05
24.36
0.775
0.417
0.150
0.21
Appendix
Table S10 : Floor 0 across a threshold ladder on the Zip-NeRF scenes ( 30 k, single runs). Diverging rows report how many scenes crossed the trainable limit, together with the peak count reached and the iteration by which training stopped. The last two rows give floor 1 for reference: our operating point, and the setting whose count is closest to the only floor- 0 threshold that completes. Counts are in millions of Gaussians.
Floor
Threshold
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GMSD ↓
Count
0.5
0.002
25.83
0.836
0.314
0.100
2.39
1
0.002
25.80
0.830
0.330
0.106
1.13
2
0.002
25.58
0.818
0.353
0.117
0.52
4
0.002
25.11
0.801
0.381
0.132
0.24
1
0.004
25.44
0.812
0.363
0.121
0.40
0.5
0.004
25.71
0.824
0.342
0.111
0.78
Appendix
Table S11 : The denominator floor on the Zip-NeRF scenes ( 30 k, single runs). Upper block: at the default threshold, the floor acts as a count–quality trade off. Lower block: with each floor’s threshold scaled by a predicted value, interleaved with a threshold sweep of floor 1 and ordered by count. Counts are in millions of Gaussians.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GMSD ↓
Count ↓
Time ↓
Occlusion-blind count
27.29
0.821
0.196
0.087
2.117
31.4
Occlusion-aware count
27.33
0.822
0.188
0.086
2.595
35.4
PixelGS
27.22
0.819
0.184
0.087
3.433
43.8
PixelGS + DS
27.20
0.820
0.183
0.087
3.157
42.2
Ours
27.30
0.820
0.186
0.087
1.954
35.4
Appendix
Table S12 : Densification criteria on Mip-NeRF360 (same criteria as Tab. 1 of the main paper; 3-run averages) and the occlusion-blind count of the integrated framework for reference. Counts are in millions of Gaussians; time in minutes.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GMSD ↓
Count ↓
Full
StopThePop
27.01
0.809
0.227
0.102
1.711
Occlusion-blind count
27.29
0.821
0.196
0.087
2.117
Occlusion-aware count
27.33
0.822
0.188
0.086
2.595
Ours
27.30
0.820
0.186
0.087
1.954
Indoor
StopThePop
30.16
0.917
0.194
0.064
0.756
Occlusion-blind count
30.60
0.922
0.182
0.060
0.741
Appendix
Table S13 : Mip-NeRF360 performance split by scene type (3-run averages): the full 9-scene average, the 4 indoor scenes (bonsai, counter, kitchen, room), and the 5 outdoor scenes (bicycle, flowers, garden, stump, treehill). Counts are in millions of Gaussians.
Flower bed
Grass ring
Criterion
Count
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
GMSD ↓
Count
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
GMSD ↓
Blind
0.26
20.52
0.694
0.169
0.18
19.49
0.279
0.216
OA-count
0.42
20.77
0.712
0.163
1.80
19.42
0.265
0.202
Ours
0.97
20.71
0.719
0.159
0.62
18.95
0.243
0.205
Appendix
Table S14 : Region-based allocation and image quality on the flowers scene (3-run averages). The two regions are the flower bed and the surrounding grass ring (radius <1.9 and 1.9 – 2.9 from the centre of the flower bed in the top-down projection, respectively). For each region, Count is the number of Gaussians (in millions) positioned within it, and PSNR/SSIM/GMSD are measured on rough image crops of those regions across all test views.
Figure S2 : Robustness to the densification threshold on the Mip-NeRF360 subset: image quality versus final Gaussian count. Each data point represents a different threshold decreasing from left to right, as the count increases. All points are three-run averages.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GMSD ↓
Count ↓
Full
StopThePop
24.67
0.813
0.372
0.152
0.396
Ours
25.58
0.833
0.344
0.128
0.832
Half
StopThePop
24.95
0.802
0.376
0.133
0.486
Ours
25.81
0.830
0.330
0.106
1.133
Appendix
Table S15 : Zip-NeRF trained with full-resolution images against the half-resolution protocol used throughout the paper ( 30 k, single runs). Shading compares within each resolution block. Counts are in millions of Gaussians.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GMSD ↓
Count ↓
Time ↓
Occlusion-blind count
25.52
0.818
0.352
0.117
0.557
22.3
Occlusion-aware count
25.75
0.834
0.319
0.103
2.567
36.6
PixelGS
25.11
0.829
0.312
0.105
6.607
67.0
PixelGS + DS
25.59
0.824
0.341
0.112
1.443
28.8
PixelGS-ours hybrid
25.18
0.828
0.313
0.104
6.366
65.2
Ours
25.81
0.830
0.330
0.106
1.133
29.9
Appendix
Table S16 : The PixelGS-ours hybrid on the occlusion-heavy Zip-NeRF scenes, added to the criterion comparison of the main paper (calibrated threshold 0.0003 , three runs), preceded by the occlusion-blind count of the integrated baseline; the extended-schedule row reports single runs. Counts are in millions of Gaussians; time in minutes.
Normalizer
Threshold
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
GMSD ↓
Count
per-view
0.002
23.80
0.431
0.162
0.06
0.0005
25.33
0.366
0.125
0.45
0.00025
25.74
0.329
0.107
1.60
sum-allocation
0.0003
22.86
0.455
0.176
0.12
0.0002
22.93
0.449
0.173
0.89
0.0001
diverges on 3/4 scenes; berlin completes at 1.79 M
Appendix
Table S17 : Alternative normalizers on the Zip-NeRF scenes ( 30 k, single runs), swept to bring each into our count range; our operating point is the 3 -run average of the main paper. Counts are in millions of Gaussians.
Figure S3 : Training-camera distribution on the alameda scene (top-down). Dots mark the COLMAP camera positions, colored by the local density of training cameras; the sparse reconstruction is shown underneath for orientation. Interior hotspots are observed by an order of magnitude more cameras than the garden loop or the peripheral rooms.
Method
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GMSD ↓
Count ↓
Time ↓
PixelGS + DS
26.46
0.848
0.285
0.090
4.472
553.5
Ours
26.59
0.852
0.278
0.086
2.754
395.7
Appendix
Table S18 : Extended 300 k schedule on the Zip-NeRF scenes (single runs), continuing the main paper’s extended-training comparison. Counts are in millions of Gaussians; time in minutes.
Figure S4 : Gaussian count versus iteration on the four Zip-NeRF scenes (single run per scene, 210 k solid, 300 k dashed, dotted verticals mark each schedule’s densification end, crosses mark crashes at the trainable limit). Ours (green) and PixelGS+DS (orange) stay bounded. The PixelGS criterion (purple) itself diverges on every scene, while the occlusion-aware count (red) diverges on two scenes.
Figure S5 : Distance scaling (DS) suppresses near-object densification (alameda, 300 k schedule). On this close-up test view, PixelGS with DS ( 6.1 M Gaussians) leaves the near object a featureless blur, whereas our average-contribution criterion ( 3.1 M Gaussians) reconstructs the detail well.
Figure S6 : An under-observed corner view (alameda test view 00070, 300 k schedule). The region is not intrinsically difficult but instead under-observed. The distance-scaled PixelGS renders an inoffensive smooth blur. Ours densifies to reconstruct the pixel-level color artifacts present in the ground truth, which it renders as colorful speckle.
Figure S7 : Per-view PSNR distribution per criterion across four training schedules. Numbers below each box count the views under 18 dB. The 30 k results are three-run averages; the extended schedules are single runs. The 210 k panel restricts all criteria to berlin and london, the two scenes on which all criteria complete.
Figure S8 : The three teaser locations of the main paper (Fig. 1) as full test frames (ground truth, StopThePop, ours). Frame colors match the location boxes of the teaser.
Figure S9 : Full-frame renders and error maps against vanilla PixelGS [ 31 ] on three Zip-NeRF scenes ( 30 k, single runs). Columns: ground truth, PixelGS, ours, and the gradient-magnitude-similarity error map ( 1− GMS, brighter is worse) of each. For every scene, the first row is the test view on which our LPIPS advantage over PixelGS is largest and the second the view on which it is smallest. Row labels give the per-view GMSD as PixelGS → ours.
Figure S10 : Top-down Gaussian density of two Mip-NeRF360 scenes (log Gaussians per ground cell; the color scale is shared across the three criteria within each scene), comparing the occlusion-blind count (Blind), the occlusion-aware count (OA-count), and our average-contribution criterion (Ours) on the same integrated baseline. Camera positions are blue dots, and each map is annotated with its total Gaussian count. Kitchen (top): Ours concentrates Gaussians on the well-observed central object. Flowers (middle): OA-count over-densifies the flat lawn around the flower bed (its bright disk balloons outward), whereas Ours keeps the bed dense and the lawn lean. Bottom: render crops of a flowers test view, the flower bed (top) and the surrounding grass (bottom), each as Blind ∣ OA-count ∣ Ours, followed by two difference maps relative to Blind (OA-count − Blind and Ours − Blind), red denser. The former isolates the occlusion-aware filter, which adds Gaussians across the bed and the lawn; the latter shows the full effect of Ours, which concentrates them on the observed bed. Blind renders visibly blurrier grass, while OA-count and Ours are similarly sharp ( Tab. S14 ).
3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) provides an explicit and efficient scene representation, but its primitives lack inherent object-level identity, hindering downstream tasks such as open-vocabulary scene understanding. Existing methods typically address this by either distilling high-dimensional feature embeddings into Gaussians or by lifting 2D mask labels into 3D via heuristic refinement. However, feature-based approaches incur heavy storage and decoding overhead, while lifting-based pipelines remain vulnerable to label contamination: Gaussians necessary for appearance reconstruction often receive incorrect object labels during 2D-to-3D projection. We propose OP2GS, an object-aware Gaussian representation that augments each primitive with an explicit instance identity and a dedicated instance opacity σ∗ for object-mask rendering. The original opacity σ remains responsible for visual reconstruction, while σ∗ models whether a Gaussian should contribute to a particular object mask. This dual-opacity formulation decouples visual existence from instance occupancy: mislabeled Gaussians can remain available for image rendering while becoming transparent in the object-mask branch. To learn this representation, we introduce a random object loss that optimizes the 1D instance occupancy field using the standard transmittance-based visibility of 3DGS. Semantic descriptors are then attached at the object level through multi-view aggregation, eliminating per-Gaussian feature storage. Compared with feature-training approaches, OP2GS achieves competitive open-vocabulary performance while significantly reducing computational overhead. Compared with training-free pipelines, it leverages physically consistent occupancy learning to resolve visibility ambiguities.
Guiyu Liu, Niklas Vaara, Janne Mustaniemi +2
Center for Machine Vision and Signal Analysis, University of Oulu, Finland · Aalto University, Finland
Feed-forward 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) reconstructs a scene in a single forward pass, replacing per-scene optimization with a network trained across many scenes. Its quality, however, degrades sharply as the number of input images drops. The bottleneck is upstream of the reconstruction heads: from a few unposed views, the internal representation they read carries no evidence for unobserved regions, leaving holes, floaters, and blur. The common remedy supplies that evidence as pixels, synthesizing extra views with an image or video generator and re-encoding them, which is costly and not 3D-consistent by construction. We instead densify the evidence itself. We present DensiTok, a plug-in module for pretrained feed-forward 3DGS models that densifies their internal geometry tokens directly, making a frozen backbone behave as though it had observed many more views than it was given. DensiTok compresses those tokens into a compact latent space, completes the latents of the unobserved viewpoints in a single flow-matching step conditioned on camera geometry, and decodes them back into tokens that the original reconstruction heads. The same module design can be integrated into different pretrained predictors while keeping each backbone and its reconstruction heads frozen. Completion in a low-dimensional latent space requires no image synthesis or additional encoder passes. Across three pretrained backbones and two benchmarks, DensiTok consistently improves sparse-view reconstruction and recovers much of the gap to dense-view reconstruction.
Minhyeok Lee, Jungho Lee, Minseok Kang +3
Yonsei University · NAVER AI Lab · Korea Institute of Science and Technology (KIST)
Pose-free feed-forward 3D Gaussian Splatting enables novel view synthesis from uncalibrated multi-view images. Although more views should improve performance, existing methods often degrade with dense-view inputs because global aggregation spreads attention over many tokens, and naive voxel fusion averages many Gaussians into overly smooth representations. We present AVSplat, a framework that turns additional views into reliable signals for both aggregation and representation. Before global attention, each view performs a single lightweight interaction with a small set of Assist Views chosen for relevance and diversity, and the cached features provide a focused scene context that stabilizes correspondence. For representation, we use adaptive temperature-aware voxel fusion that sharpens attribution under high occupancy, guided by occupancy and point confidence. Crucially, AVSplat restores positive view scaling where performance remains stable or improves as more input views are added, instead of degrading in the dense-view regime. Ablations show that Assist View Preconditioning is primarily responsible for preventing dense-view degradation, while Occupancy-guided Voxel Fusion contributes most of the single-point image-quality gains.
Muyu Xu, Fangneng Zhan, Yu Wei +2
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore · Harvard University, MA 02138, USA