This work presents SplatFlux, a feed-forward latent-to-4DGS framework for both video-based 4D reconstruction and conditional 4D generation. Our key observation is that observed videos and conditionally generated content can be represented in the same pretrained video latent space, allowing both tasks to be formulated as latent-to-4DGS decoding. To construct compact and temporally coherent 4D scenes, SplatFlux introduces a static-dynamic decoupled 4D Gaussian representation that explicitly predicts dynamic probabilities for Gaussian primitives. This representation separates static scene structures from moving regions, enabling complete 4D scene construction in a feed-forward manner through static aggregation and dynamic motion interpolation. To learn static-dynamic decomposition and dynamic Gaussian motion without costly annotations, we further develop an auxiliary distillation strategy that provides pseudo dynamic masks and optical-flow cues. Extensive experiments across 3D and 4D reconstruction and generation demonstrate that SplatFlux achieves state-of-the-art performance.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Overview of SplatFlux. SplatFlux unifies video-based reconstruction and conditional generation through a shared latent-to-4DGS decoder. It predicts a static-dynamic decoupled 4D Gaussian representation, where static Gaussians are aggregated across frames and dynamic Gaussians are propagated by local motion for arbitrary-time and arbitrary-view rendering.
Method
NVIDIA Dynamic Scene
DyCheck
DAVIS
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
mPSNR ↑
mSSIM ↑
mLPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
4DGT* Xu et al. (2025b)
15.97
0.3426
0.5408
13.98
0.4609
0.5225
17.54
0.4767
0.4581
MoVieS* Lin et al. (2025a)
18.72
0.5059
0.2527
13.89
0.4802
0.4536
19.97
0.5927
0.2516
NeoVerse Yang et al. (2026)
18.83
0.4695
0.2881
14.57
0.4639
0.4645
18.58
0.5067
0.3198
SplatFlux (Ours)
21.56
0.5879
0.1918
14.68
0.5007
0.4201
20.84
0.6083
0.2494
Table 1: Quantitative comparison of dynamic novel view synthesis on the NVIDIA Dynamic Scene, DyCheck, and DAVIS datasets. * denotes approaches that require camera pose as input. The best and second-best results are highlighted for clarity.
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison of dynamic novel view synthesis across different methods.
Method
Imaging ↑
Aesthetic ↑
CLIP ↑
Alignment ↑
Coherence ↑
Style ↑
Prometheus ( Yang et al., 2025b )
44.73
45.85
28.57
3.20
3.36
2.98
SplatFlow ( Go et al., 2025b )
48.85
53.71
29.43
3.47
3.65
3.26
VIST3A ( Go et al., 2025a )
64.87
56.96
30.18
3.67
3.86
3.40
SplatFlux (Ours)
69.18
58.08
31.35
3.72
3.97
3.48
Table 2: Quantitative comparison of text-to-3D generation on SceneBench ( Yang et al., 2025b ) . The best and second-best results are highlighted for clarity.
Method
Sub. consistency ↑
B.g. consistency ↑
Dynamic degree ↑
Aesthetic ↑
Imaging ↑
Mochi ( Team, 2024 )
95.07
94.37
54.08
52.37
56.09
HunyuanVideo ( Kong et al., 2024 )
95.94
94.78
37.76
53.51
64.69
SteerX Mochi ( Park et al., 2025 )
94.07
93.88
57.14
49.69
57.13
SteerX HunyuanVideo ( Park et al., 2025 )
96.11
95.23
37.76
53.32
61.23
SplatFlux (Ours)
96.11
95.90
74.49
64.07
70.92
Table 3: Quantitative comparison of text-to-4D generation on PenguinVideoBenchmark ( Kong et al., 2024 ) . SteerX Mochi/HunyuanVideo denotes the variant using Mochi ( Team, 2024 ) or HunyuanVideo ( Kong et al., 2024 ) as the base model. The best and second-best results are highlighted for clarity.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of conditional 3D and 4D generation across different methods.
Method
Sub. consistency ↑
B.g. consistency ↑
Dynamic degree ↑
Aesthetic ↑
Imaging ↑
CogVideoX ( Yang et al., 2024 )
94.86
94.83
40.00
63.70
69.56
SteerX CogVideoX ( Park et al., 2025 )
95.91
95.43
31.55
64.16
71.55
Aether ( Zhu et al., 2025 )
97.97
97.03
19.72
63.89
69.85
SplatFlux (Ours)
95.95
96.01
49.86
64.84
72.07
Table 4: Quantitative comparison of image-to-4D generation on VBench-I2V ( Huang et al., 2024 ) . SteerX CogVideoX denotes the variant using CogVideoX ( Yang et al., 2024 ) as the base model. The best and second-best results are highlighted for clarity.
Figure 8
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Domain
Real?
Dynamic?
#Scenes
ARKitScenes ( Baruch et al., 2021 )
Indoor
✓
✗
675
BEDLAM ( Black et al., 2023 )
Mixed
✗
✓
7309
CO3Dv2 ( Reizenstein et al., 2021 )
Object
✓
✗
2500
DL3DV ( Ling et al., 2024 )
Mixed
✓
✗
6370
Dynamic Replica ( Karaev et al., 2023 )
Indoor
✗
✓
483
Hypersim ( Roberts et al., 2021 )
Indoor
✗
✗
741
Appendix
Table 6: Training Datasets of SplatFlux.
Method
Sintel
Bonn
KITTI
Rel ↓
δ1↑
Rel ↓
δ1↑
Rel ↓
δ1↑
VDA ( Chen et al., 2025a )
0.855
0.340
0.301
0.465
0.272
0.535
DepthCrafter ( Hu et al., 2025a )
0.469
0.455
0.074
0.968
0.282
0.435
GeometryCrafter ( Xu et al., 2025a )
0.305
0.675
0.057
0.969
0.057
0.981
VGGT ( Wang et al., 2025c )
0.373
0.634
0.057
0.966
0.062
0.969
Pi3 ( Wang et al., 2026c )
0.281
0.663
0.049
0.975
0.038
0.985
Appendix
Table 7: Quantitative comparison of scale-invariant video depth estimation on the Sintel ( Butler et al., 2012 ) , Bonn ( Palazzolo et al., 2019 ) , and KITTI ( Geiger et al., 2013 ) datasets. The best and second-best results are highlighted for clarity.
Method
6 Views
12 Views
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
WorldMirror ( Liu et al., 2025 )
21.69
0.7050
0.2418
20.61
0.6558
0.2933
DA3 ( Lin et al., 2026 )
20.86
0.6472
0.2395
20.54
0.6241
0.2592
NeoVerse ( Yang et al., 2026 )
20.02
0.6170
0.3267
18.99
0.5550
0.3915
SplatFlux (Ours)
22.17
0.7309
0.2287
21.01
0.6731
0.2778
Appendix
Table 8: Quantitative comparison of static novel view synthesis on the DL3DV-140 benchmark ( Ling et al., 2024 ) with 6 and 12 unposed input views. The best and second-best results are highlighted.
Method
DAVIS-16
DAVIS-17
DAVIS-all
JM ↑
JR ↑
FM ↑
FR ↑
JM ↑
JR ↑
FM ↑
FR ↑
JM ↑
JR ↑
FM ↑
FR ↑
Easi3R DUSt3R (w/ SAM2) ( Chen et al., 2025b )
71.7
80.5
71.9
78.1
64.3
71.8
64.3
69.4
56.4
63.2
55.6
58.5
Easi3R MonST3R (w/ SAM2) ( Chen et al., 2025b )
70.7
81.8
68.4
79.4
66.9
76.2
65.2
75.7
63.2
71.1
61.0
66.9
VGGT4D ( Hu et al., 2025b )
62.1
76.8
56.0
67.5
56.5
65.6
51.1
56.9
50.8
55.6
47.0
46.4
SplatFlux (Ours)
76.8
89.3
81.2
92.5
76.7
88.1
80.9
91.2
73.6
82.5
78.6
87.3
Appendix
Table 9: Quantitative comparison of dynamic object segmentation on the DAVIS ( Perazzi et al., 2016 ) dataset. Easi3R DUSt3R/MonST3R denotes the variant using DUSt3R ( Wang et al., 2024 ) or MonST3R ( Zhang et al., 2025a ) as backbone, and w/ SAM2 denotes using SAM2 ( Ravi et al., 2024 ) for mask refinement. The best and second-best results are highlighted for clarity.
Figure 6: Qualitative comparison of dynamic object segmentation across different methods.
Figure 7: Qualitative comparison between the pseudo dynamic mask and the dynamic mask predicted by SplatFlux.
Figure 8: Visualization of 4DGS scenes reconstructed by SplatFlux. Rows show the input video, fixed-camera rendering, frozen-time rendering, and joint camera–time variation. Columns follow the progression of each visualization sequence.
Figure 9: Visualization of 4DGS scenes generated by SplatFlux. The corresponding text or image condition is shown on the left. For each scene, rows show fixed-camera rendering, frozen-time rendering, and joint camera-time variation. Columns follow the progression of each visualization sequence.
Dynamic scene reconstruction from monocular video remains a fundamental challenge in computer vision. Existing feed-forward methods predict 3D Gaussians pixel-wise for each frame, suffering from duplicated Gaussians and view-dependent biases that hinder effective learning of scene motion. We present C4G, a feed-forward 4D reconstruction framework built upon a compact set of timestamp-conditioned learnable Gaussian query tokens. Each token aggregates corresponding features across the full temporal context and decodes a 3D Gaussian whose position is modulated by the target timestamp, enabling globally coherent motion modeling without per-scene optimization. To capture fine-grained details, we further introduce a video diffusion model-based rendering enhancement module. Since our framework effectively aggregates features into Gaussians, we extend this capability to feature lifting, producing a 4D feature field that supports point tracking and dynamic scene understanding. C4G achieves strong novel-view synthesis performance using significantly fewer Gaussians and without requiring camera poses, while exhibiting stronger motion modeling and robustness to large temporal gaps.
4D generation synthesizes dynamic 3D scenes from conditions such as text or images. Existing methods either reconstruct generated RGB videos with a separate 4D model or adapt a particular video generator to predict geometry directly. The former suffers from distribution mismatch and error propagation, whereas the latter ties 4D prediction to a specific generator and may require retraining when the generator or conditioning regime changes. We ask whether the final denoised latents of video models that share a variational autoencoder (VAE) can instead provide a reusable interface to explicit 4D prediction. Building on this insight, we introduce direct latent-to-4D generation and instantiate it as Latent-to-4D, which bypasses RGB by aligning a video latent with the token grid of a pretrained 4D decoder and refining it through frame-wise and global spatiotemporal attention. Trained on roughly 1K existing reconstruction clips, a single checkpoint transfers unchanged across multiple video diffusion transformers within the same VAE family. On Text4D-200 and I4D-200, Latent-to-4D surpasses matched same-latent Wan+4RC cascades in projection-based DINO-F1 by 2.88--3.45 and 5.81 points, respectively, while also being preferred by human raters for geometry, temporal stability, and overall quality.
Online reconstruction of dynamic 4D scenes from long, unposed streaming videos requires both continuous processing and photorealistic rendering, which existing methods struggle to achieve simultaneously. Existing feed-forward Gaussian methods are restricted to offline processing, whereas online point-cloud approaches struggle to maintain dense geometry and high-fidelity rendering. We present DynStream, a framework for streaming 4D Gaussian reconstruction from long, unposed videos. Given a continuous video stream, DynStream reconstructs the scene within local temporal windows and incrementally aligns and fuses these local reconstructions into a globally consistent scene, enabling online 4D reconstruction without per-scene optimization. By jointly enforcing cross-window geometric consistency and modeling time-varying scene content, DynStream supports efficient reconstruction and photorealistic rendering over extended video streams. Experiments demonstrate that DynStream enables high-fidelity online dynamic reconstruction and rendering from long video streams, achieving state-of-the-art performance across diverse dynamic indoor and outdoor scenes.
Dingwei Xian, Xiaoyu Zhou, Yajiao Xiong +2
Wangxuan Institute of Computer Technology, Peking University · VGI Labs Co., Ltd. · University of California, Merced