Recent studies on generalizable human Gaussian splatting have achieved the notable progress in synthesizing novel views of unseen human subjects from multi-view images. Despite this progress, existing methods still struggle to represent fine-grained details of human subjects, which inherently involve high geometric and textural complexity. This is because previous methods do not impose a constraint on how densely Gaussians are placed, which often leads to blurry rendering results in complex regions. To address this problem, we propose a complexity-guided regularization scheme. The key idea is to leverage a complexity prior computed via the local entropy in geometric and textural characteristics of a clothed human. This effectively prevents Gaussians from being coarsely placed in complex regions, which facilitates the faithful reconstruction of intricate structures. Furthermore, we sample local patches predominantly from complex regions according to this complexity prior, which allows the model to be sufficiently supervised by local details. Experimental results on benchmark datasets demonstrate that our method delivers state-of-the-art performance while maintaining the real-time inference speed in generalizable human Gaussian splatting. The code and model are publicly available at https://github.com/DCVL-3D/CGR-GS_release.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Distributions of Gaussian centers and the corresponding rendering results. (a) Novel view image. (b) GPS-Gaussian [ 10 ] . (c) RoGSplat [ 15 ] . (d) Proposed method.
Figure 2: Overall architecture of the proposed method. The complexity prior of the clothed human guides the model to allocate Gaussians densely in complex regions. Note that Gaussians are randomly supervised by either the entire image or complexity-aware local patches with the equal probability at each iteration.
Figure 3: Complexity prior and complexity-guided regularization scheme. (a) RGB image. (b) Per-vertex complexity prior c . (c) Geometric complexity Hˉgeo . (d) Textural complexity Hˉtex . (e) Overview of the complexity-guided regularization process, where the local Gaussian density is computed from the average distance of k -nearest neighbor Gaussians and regularized to be positively correlated with the complexity prior via a pairwise ranking regularization scheme.
Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of in-domain novel view synthesis on THuman2.0 [ 24 ] , 2K2K [ 25 ] , and X-Humans [ 26 ] datasets (from top to bottom). (a) Input images. (b) Results by GPS-Gaussian [ 10 ] . (c) Results by RoGSplat [ 15 ] . (d) Results by GHGS-MVSC [ 12 ] . (e) Results by the proposed method. (f) Ground truth.
Methods
THuman2.0
2K2K
X-Humans
FPS ↑
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GPS-Gaussian [ 10 ]
26.54
0.9539
0.0610
26.46
0.9483
0.0611
26.29
0.9458
0.0687
56.31
RoGSplat [ 15 ]
28.83
0.9615
0.0429
30.67
0.9697
0.0310
30.31
0.9656
0.0371
5.42
GHGS-MVSC [ 12 ]
30.93
0.9710
0.0334
30.45
0.9678
0.0326
30.60
0.9668
0.0391
2.79
Ours
32.42
0.9766
0.0201
31.68
0.9717
0.0229
31.96
0.9703
0.0230
33.96
Table 1: Quantitative comparison of in-domain novel view synthesis on THuman2.0 [ 24 ] , 2K2K [ 25 ] , and X-Humans [ 26 ] datasets. The best result is shown in bold.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of cross-domain novel view synthesis on 2K2K [ 25 ] and X-Humans [ 26 ] datasets (from top to bottom). (a) Input images. (b) Results by GPS-Gaussian [ 10 ] . (c) Results by GHG [ 13 ] . (d) Results by RoGSplat [ 15 ] . (e) Results by the proposed method. (f) Ground truth.
Methods
THuman2.0 → 2K2K
THuman2.0 → X-Humans
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GPS-Gaussian [ 10 ]
24.47
0.9361
0.0721
24.34
0.9330
0.0795
GHG [ 13 ]
26.74
0.9548
0.0518
26.06
0.9494
0.0580
RoGSplat [ 15 ]
26.96
0.9490
0.0489
26.57
0.9496
0.0507
GHGS-MVSC [ 12 ]
28.59
0.9527
0.0480
25.17
0.9375
0.0674
Ours
29.52
0.9580
0.0412
27.53
0.9499
0.0474
Table 2: Quantitative comparison of cross-domain novel view synthesis on 2K2K [ 25 ] and X-Humans [ 26 ] datasets. The best result is shown in bold.
Figure 6: Ablation studies on the THuman2.0 dataset. We visualize the rendering result and the local Gaussian density. (a) Results by the baseline. (b) Results without patch supervision. (c) Results without Lcomp . (d) Results by the proposed method. (e) Ground truth.
Lcomp
Patch sup.
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
✗
✗
30.32
0.9664
0.0316
✓
✗
30.79
0.9695
0.0269
✗
✓
32.06
0.9752
0.0209
✓
✓
32.42
0.9766
0.0201
Table 3: Ablation studies on the THuman2.0 dataset.
# Neighbors ( k )
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
k=3
30.55
0.9684
0.0299
k=5
30.68
0.9690
0.0275
k=7
30.79
0.9695
0.0269
k=9
30.75
0.9696
0.0271
Table 4: Performance analysis according to different k values on the THuman2.0 dataset.
Strategy
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Random sampling
31.63
0.9731
0.0227
Gradient-based sampling
31.81
0.9744
0.0216
Complexity-aware sampling
32.06
0.9752
0.0209
Table 5: Comparison of patch sampling strategies on the THuman2.0 dataset.
Complexity component
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Geometric complexity ( Hˉgeo )
31.65
0.9727
0.0232
Textural complexity ( Hˉtex )
32.24
0.9752
0.0214
Average operation ( mean(Hˉgeo,Hˉtex) )
32.31
0.9760
0.0205
Maximum operation ( max(Hˉgeo,Hˉtex) )
32.42
0.9766
0.0201
Table 6: Ablation study of complexity components on the THuman2.0 dataset.
Complexity-guided reg.
Correlation coefficient ↑
✗
0.1086
✓
0.4262
Table 7: Spearman rank correlation between local complexity and density of Gaussians on the THuman2.0 dataset.
Methods
Depth reg.
Textured mesh
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GPS-Gaussian [ 10 ]
✓
✗
26.54
0.9539
0.0610
RoGSplat [ 15 ]
✓
✗
28.83
0.9615
0.0429
GHGS-MVSC [ 12 ]
✗
✗
30.93
0.9710
0.0334
Ours
✗
✗
31.83
0.9737
0.0231
✓
✗
32.04
0.9744
0.0224
✓
✓
32.42
0.9766
0.0201
Table 8: Quantitative comparison under different regularization settings on the THuman2.0 dataset.
Appendix figures & tables16 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Attribute
Per-token Dim.
Per-Gaussian Dim.
Activation
Depth
64
1
Sigmoid
3D spatial offset
192
3
-
Scale
192
3
Exp
Rotation
256
4
Norm.
Opacity
64
1
Sigmoid
Color
192
3
-
Appendix
Table 9: The output dimension and the activation function of each Gaussian attribute.
Lcomp
Patch sup.
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
✗
✗
29.80
0.9632
0.0357
✓
✗
30.41
0.9665
0.0327
✗
✓
30.96
0.9702
0.0279
✓
✓
32.01
0.9750
0.0212
Appendix
Table 10: Ablation studies on the THuman2.0 dataset without the depth regularization scheme Ldepth .
Table 11: Comparison of loss formulations for the complexity-guided regularization scheme on the THuman2.0 dataset.
Perturbed regularization
Input masks
PSNR ↑
Δ PSNR
✗
Clean
31.68
–
✗
Jitter
31.41
−0.27
✓
Clean
31.46
−0.22
✓
Jitter
31.28
−0.40
Appendix
Table 12: Robustness to degraded training-time regularization and inference-time mask perturbation on the 2K2K dataset.
Table 19
Figure 7: Qualitative comparison of in-domain novel view synthesis on THuman2.0 [ 24 ] with different numbers of input views (3-view, 4-view, and 5-view settings from top to bottom). (a, g) Input images. (b, h) Results by GPS-Gaussian [ 10 ] . (c, i) Results by RoGSplat [ 15 ] . (d, j) Results by GHGS-MVSC [ 12 ] . (e, k) Results by the proposed method. (f, l) Ground truth.
Methods
3-view
4-view
5-view
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GPS-Gaussian [ 10 ]
-
-
-
-
-
-
26.54
0.9539
0.0610
EVA-Gaussian [ 11 ]
-
-
-
26.31
0.9555
0.0391
27.54
0.9614
0.0297
GHG [ 13 ]
24.84
0.9232
0.0719
25.84
0.9462
0.0633
26.53
0.9571
0.0398
RoGSplat [ 15 ]
26.32
0.9478
0.0530
28.83
0.9615
0.0429
30.98
0.9711
0.0341
GHGS-MVSC [ 12 ]
27.81
0.9521
0.0517
30.93
0.9710
0.0334
31.54
0.9729
0.0269
Appendix
Table 15: Quantitative comparison of in-domain novel view synthesis on THuman2.0 [ 24 ] with different numbers of input views. The best result is shown in bold.
Methods
In-domain
THuman2.0 → THuman2.1
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GPS-Gaussian [ 10 ]
25.42
0.9430
0.0705
23.44
0.9315
0.0793
GHG [ 13 ]
27.83
0.9628
0.0498
25.07
0.9418
0.0651
RoGSplat [ 15 ]
30.57
0.9717
0.0300
26.64
0.9524
0.0523
GHGS-MVSC [ 12 ]
31.11
0.9735
0.0297
28.39
0.9621
0.0384
Ours
35.49
0.9851
0.0132
29.65
0.9623
0.0267
Appendix
Table 16: Quantitative comparison of novel view synthesis on the THuman2.1 [ 24 ] dataset under in-domain and cross-domain settings. The best result is shown in bold.
Figure 8: Qualitative comparison of in-domain novel view synthesis on the THuman2.1 [ 24 ] dataset. (a) Input images. (b) Results by GPS-Gaussian [ 10 ] . (c) Results by RoGSplat [ 15 ] . (d) Results by GHGS-MVSC [ 12 ] . (e) Results by the proposed method. (f) Ground truth.
Figure 9: Qualitative comparison of cross-domain novel view synthesis on the THuman2.1 [ 24 ] dataset. (a) Input images. (b) Results by GPS-Gaussian [ 10 ] . (c) Results by GHG [ 13 ] . (d) Results by RoGSplat [ 15 ] . (e) Results by the proposed method. (f) Ground truth.
Figure 10: Qualitative comparison of cross-domain novel view synthesis on DNA-Rendering [ 29 ] and ZJU-MoCap [ 30 ] datasets (from top to bottom). (a) Input images. (b) Results by GPS-Gaussian [ 10 ] . (c) Results by GHG [ 13 ] . (d) Results by RoGSplat [ 15 ] . (e) Results by the proposed method. (f) Ground truth.
Methods
THuman2.0 → DNA-Rendering
THuman2.0 → ZJU-MoCap
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
GPS-Gaussian [ 10 ]
23.22
0.8821
0.1296
26.26
0.9296
0.0829
GHG [ 13 ]
23.31
0.8852
0.0937
26.72
0.9357
0.0712
RoGSplat [ 15 ]
25.68
0.9180
0.0803
27.66
0.9508
0.0547
GHGS-MVSC [ 12 ]
17.76
0.8274
0.1397
23.10
0.8924
0.1056
Ours
26.47
0.9186
0.0788
28.99
0.9525
0.0536
Appendix
Table 17: Quantitative comparison of cross-domain novel view synthesis on real-world datasets, i.e., DNA-Rendering [ 29 ] and ZJU-MoCap [ 30 ] . The best result is shown in bold.
Methods
THuman2.0
X-Humans
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
CSIM ↑
AKD ↓
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
CSIM ↑
AKD ↓
GPS-Gaussian [ 10 ]
20.20
0.798
0.240
0.426
3.19
19.52
0.712
0.327
0.388
3.69
RoGSplat [ 15 ]
18.18
0.748
0.259
0.473
2.76
19.84
0.703
0.228
0.484
2.99
GHGS-MVSC [ 12 ]
23.23
0.856
0.184
0.549
2.25
23.18
0.785
0.219
0.513
2.72
Ours
24.73
0.888
0.111
0.699
1.26
25.48
0.831
0.137
0.620
2.04
Appendix
Table 18: Quantitative comparison on the face region of THuman2.0 [ 24 ] and X-Humans [ 26 ] datasets under in-domain settings. The best result is shown in bold.
Figure 11: Qualitative comparison on the face region of THuman2.0 [ 24 ] and X-Humans [ 26 ] datasets (from top to bottom). (a) Results by GPS-Gaussian [ 10 ] . (b) Results by RoGSplat [ 15 ] . (c) Results by GHGS-MVSC [ 12 ] . (d) Results by the proposed method. (e) Ground truth.
Methods
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ∗↓
FID ↓
FPS ↑
LIFe-GoM [ 14 ]
25.10
108.75
45.17
1.0
Ours
29.22
49.44
7.91
7.7
Appendix
Table 19: Quantitative comparison with LIFe-GoM [ 14 ] on the THuman2.0 dataset. The best result is shown in bold.
Datasets
Methods
# of input views
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
THuman2.1
IDOL [ 40 ]
1
22.12
0.9257
0.112
Ours
4
33.51
0.9802
0.017
2K2K
LHM [ 41 ]
1
20.73
0.9084
0.122
Ours
4
31.72
0.9722
0.022
Appendix
Table 20: Quantitative comparison with single-image human reconstruction methods. The best result is shown in bold.
Recently, generalizable human Gaussian splatting from sparse-view inputs has been actively studied for the photorealistic human rendering. Most existing methods rely on explicit geometric constraints or predefined structural representations to accurately position 3D Gaussians. Although these approaches have shown the remarkable progress in this field, they still suffer from inconsistent feature representations across multi-view inputs due to complex articulations of the human body and limited overlaps between different views. To address this problem, we propose a novel method to accurately localize 3D Gaussians and ultimately improve the quality of human rendering. The key idea is to unproject latent embeddings encoded from each viewpoint into a shared 3D space through predicted depth maps and recalibrate them belonging to the same body part based on cross-view attention. This helps the model resolve the spatial ambiguity occurring in highly textured regions as well as occluded body parts, thus leading to the accurate localization of 3D Gaussians. Experimental results on benchmark datasets show that the proposed method efficiently improves the performance of generalizable human Gaussian splatting from sparse-view inputs.
We present Cloth-HUGS, a Gaussian Splatting based neural rendering framework for photorealistic clothed human reconstruction that explicitly disentangles body and clothing. Unlike prior methods that absorb clothing into a single body representation and struggle with loose garments and complex deformations, Cloth-HUGS represents the performer using separate Gaussian layers for body and cloth within a shared canonical space. The canonical volume jointly encodes body, cloth, and scene primitives and is deformed through SMPL-driven articulation with learned linear blend skinning weights. To improve cloth realism, we initialize cloth Gaussians from mesh topology and apply physics-inspired constraints, including simulation-consistency, ARAP regularization, and mask supervision. We further introduce a depth-aware multi-pass rendering strategy for robust body-cloth-scene compositing, enabling real-time rendering at over 60 FPS. Experiments on multiple benchmarks show that Cloth-HUGS improves perceptual quality and geometric fidelity over state-of-the-art baselines, reducing LPIPS by up to 28% while producing temporally coherent cloth dynamics.
3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has recently emerged as a promising approach in novel view synthesis, combining photorealistic rendering with real-time efficiency. However, its success heavily relies on dense camera coverage; under sparse-view conditions, insufficient supervision leads to irregular Gaussian distributions, characterized by globally sparse coverage, blurred background, and distorted high-frequency areas. To address this, we propose HeroGS, Hierarchical Guidance for Robust 3D Gaussian Splatting, a unified framework that establishes hierarchical guidance across the image, feature, and parameter levels. At the image level, sparse supervision is converted into pseudo-dense guidance, globally regularizing the Gaussian distributions and forming a consistent foundation for subsequent optimization. Building upon this, Feature-Adaptive Densification and Pruning (FADP) at the feature level leverages low-level features to refine high-frequency details and adaptively densifies Gaussians in background regions. The optimized distributions then support Co-Pruned Geometry Consistency (CPG) at parameter level, which guides geometric consistency through parameter freezing and co-pruning, effectively removing inconsistent splats. The hierarchical guidance strategy effectively constrains and optimizes the overall Gaussian distributions, thereby enhancing both structural fidelity and rendering quality. Extensive experiments demonstrate that HeroGS achieves high-fidelity reconstructions and consistently surpasses state-of-the-art baselines under sparse-view conditions.