Online semantic 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) enables open-vocabulary scene understanding from streaming observations. However, existing methods recover geometric context missing from image-derived semantic features using an additionally learned 3D network, incurring extra training and runtime overhead. We observe that such geometric-semantic evidence may already exist in the agent's observation history and can be retrieved rather than learned. Based on this insight, we introduce RecallGS (Geometry-Grounded Recall for Online Semantic Gaussian Splatting), a lightweight, training-free mechanism that treats past observations as a non-parametric geometric-semantic prior. RecallGS follows a recall-ground-fuse pipeline: CLIP retrieves relevant observations, alpha-compositing weights identify geometrically supported views, and aggregate their semantic features over each Gaussian's rendered footprint. On ScanNet and ScanNet++, RecallGS achieves strong semantic segmentation performance at 2.48 FPS, demonstrating that geometric-semantic context can be effectively recovered from observation history without an additional learned 3D branch.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of RecallGS. Given a posed observation and the observation history, RecallGS recalls candidate views via CLIP, verifies their geometric support with rendering responsibility, and replays the verified features to build an online 3DGS reconstruction with a semantic field
Method
ScanNet-10
ScanNet-15
ScanNet-19
ScanNet++-20
Avg FPS
Scope
Mode
mIoU
mAcc
mIoU
mAcc
mIoU
mAcc
mIoU
mAcc
LangSplat
6.52
20.11
3.25
13.16
1.34
7.44
2.21
10.18
-
Per-Scene
Offline
LEGaussians
6.79
18.13
4.13
15.49
2.53
5.67
2.93
9.34
-
Online-LangSplat
7.13
21.56
3.89
14.52
3.45
8.97
4.51
11.34
1.12
Online
OpenGaussian
29.50
44.61
23.74
39.14
22.52
35.02
25.65
37.03
-
Per-Scene
Offline
Occam’s LGS
42.14
70.28
35.04
63.71
30.49
57.91
34.08
61.19
-
Table 1: Main comparison on ScanNet and ScanNet++. We report mIoU, mAcc, and online FPS; a dash denotes offline methods. Best and second-best results are bold and underlined , respectively.
Figure 2: Qualitative comparison on ScanNet and ScanNet++. RecallGS produces more coherent semantic regions and fewer artifacts than EmbodiedSplat-fast, particularly on large surfaces and partially observed boundaries.
Variant
ScanNet-10
ScanNet-15
ScanNet-19
ScanNet++-20
Recent History
49.74
44.89
43.07
47.61
CLIP Only
50.18
45.52
43.57
48.21
Full (RecallGS)
50.96
46.40
44.41
48.75
Table 2: Ablation of historical-view retrieval
Variant
ScanNet-10
ScanNet-15
ScanNet-19
ScanNet++-20
Projected Center
49.27
45.18
42.86
47.34
Center Lifting
50.05
45.62
43.58
48.06
Full Tα (RecallGS)
50.96
46.40
44.41
48.75
Table 3: Ablation on compositing vs. center-based fusion.