Organizations: School of Information Science and Electronic Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · SJTU Paris Elite Institute of Technology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · Cooperative Medianet Innovation Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for real-time photorealistic novel view synthesis. However, its training-time densification remains largely heuristic, often resulting in redundant Gaussian proliferation and inaccurate geometric reconstruction. Existing methods predominantly rely on first-order screen-space gradients to trigger cloning and splitting, which fail to distinguish true geometric discontinuities from high-frequency textures or noisy residuals. To address this limitation, we propose ACD-GS, an Asymmetric Curvature-aware Densification framework for compact and geometry-aware 3D Gaussian optimization. Our key insight is that second-order depth responses provide a more reliable structural prior for density control, enabling asymmetric regulation of cloning and splitting to better capture geometric discontinuities. Building on this, we introduce a multi-view photometric consistency constraint to suppress transient single-view errors, together with a capacity-aware adaptive regulation strategy that balances densification and pruning during training. Unlike post-hoc compression or quantization-based approaches, ACD-GS directly prevents redundant Gaussian generation during training, yielding inherently compact representations. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our method reduces nearly 60% of Gaussian count and storage while maintaining competitive rendering fidelity, consistently outperforming existing methods across multiple datasets. Our code is available in https://waveviewer.github.io/ACD-GS/.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The point-cloud visualizations show our ACD-GS produces sparser Gaussians while preserving scene structure. The right plot (training time vs. storage, color-coded by PSNR) confirms that we achieve lower storage and faster training without sacrificing rendering quality.
Figure 2: Overview of ACD-GS. Curvature-guided asymmetric densification suppresses cloning and promotes splitting near depth boundaries; multi-view photometric gating verifies candidates; capacity-aware thresholding and opacity pruning regulate growth. Depth is rendered from the current Gaussians rather than input.
Aquarium
Bedroom
Method
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
Size(MB) ↓
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
Size(MB) ↓
3DGS
0.869
22.66
0.161
177.44
0.907
28.86
0.274
316.93
Mip-Splatting
0.851
22.52
0.176
272.31
0.904
28.68
0.274
473.69
Mini-Splatting
0.851
23.81
0.166
810.17
0.901
28.28
0.295
981.14
AbsGS
0.806
21.82
0.229
183.16
0.901
28.85
0.275
253.97
GDAGS
0.842
22.18
0.186
159.86
0.907
29.05
0.270
283.22
Table 1: Quantitative Comparison on Deep Blending
Train
Truck
Method
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
Size(MB) ↓
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
Size(MB) ↓
3DGS
0.8202
22.04
0.1963
258.35
0.8851
25.47
0.1418
487.82
Mip-Splatting
0.8266
21.87
0.1893
354.45
0.8930
25.74
0.1231
784.70
Mini-Splatting
0.7099
18.77
0.3234
937.32
0.8573
23.66
0.1583
1084.63
AbsGS
0.8166
21.64
0.1942
230.86
0.8874
25.71
0.1314
388.02
GDAGS
0.8129
21.53
0.2068
223.96
0.8858
25.49
0.1380
415.07
Table 2: Quantitative Comparison on Tanks & Temples and Mip-NeRF 360
Deep Blending
Mip-NeRF 360
Tanks & Temples
Method
Time(s) ↓
Size(MB) ↓
Points(M) ↓
Time(s) ↓
Size(MB) ↓
Points(M) ↓
Time(s) ↓
Size(MB) ↓
Points(M) ↓
3DGS
842
367.30
1.5500
683
638.40
2.7000
552
373.10
1.5800
Mip-Splatting
1007
563.20
2.3400
956
991.10
4.1200
716
569.60
2.3700
Mini-Splatting
1125
959.10
4.1300
893
1108.60
4.6900
857
1011.00
4.2700
AbsGS
795
400.40
1.6900
683
716.40
3.0300
433
309.40
1.3100
GDAGS
628
360.60
1.5800
517
707.10
2.9900
350
319.50
1.3500
Table 3: Efficiency Metrics Comparison
Figure 3: Qualitative comparison of novel view synthesis on the Deep Blending dataset.
Figure 4: Visualization of Gaussians distribution
Table 8
Setting
PSNR ↑
SSIM ↑
LPIPS ↓
Points ↓
Size(MB) ↓
K=4
25.3380
0.8432
0.2393
550,173
136.44
K=8
25.5914
0.8450
0.2363
642,045
151.85
K=12
25.3605
0.8440
0.2390
661,947
156.88
μ=0.004
25.5145
0.8444
0.2363
641,737
151.78
μ=0.008
25.5913
0.8450
0.2363
642,044
151.85
μ=0.012
25.4211
0.8432
0.2372
642,241
151.90
Table 6: Sensitivity to the number of auxiliary views K and quota ratio μ .
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Scene
Setting
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
Size(MB) ↓
Points(M) ↓
Aquarium-20
τ=0.05
0.8722
26.16
0.1673
52.04
0.2777
τ=0.15
0.8738
26.42
0.1655
41.76
0.1766
τ=0.25
0.8726
26.03
0.1656
51.73
0.2764
Bedroom
τ=0.05
0.9070
29.00
0.2897
121.89
0.5731
τ=0.15
0.9073
29.04
0.2899
111.74
0.4724
τ=0.25
0.9076
29.04
0.2903
121.59
0.5718
Appendix
Table A1: Quality and efficiency under different depth soft thresholds.
Scene
Setting
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
Size(MB) ↓
Points(M) ↓
Aquarium-20
(0.5,1.0)
0.8517
23.38
0.1751
132.12
0.5586
(0.8,1.5)
0.8738
26.42
0.1655
41.76
0.1766
(1.0,2.5)
0.8486
24.40
0.1760
140.75
0.5951
Bedroom
(0.5,1.0)
0.9068
28.87
0.2729
185.58
0.7847
(0.8,1.5)
0.9073
29.04
0.2899
111.74
0.4724
(1.0,2.5)
0.9072
28.92
0.2719
197.59
0.8355
Appendix
Table A2: Quality and efficiency under different settings of α and β .
Scene
Setting
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
Size(MB) ↓
Points(M) ↓
Aquarium-20
Rate =0.5
0.8739
26.20
0.1652
40.21
0.1700
Ours (Rate =1.0 )
0.8738
26.42
0.1655
41.76
0.1766
Rate =1.5
0.8729
26.28
0.1647
42.01
0.1776
Bedroom
Rate =0.5
0.9078
29.10
0.2898
111.66
0.4721
Ours (Rate =1.0 )
0.9073
29.04
0.2899
111.74
0.4724
Rate =1.5
0.9084
29.07
0.2891
111.76
0.4725
Appendix
Table A3: Quality and efficiency under different opacity-pruning rates.
Scene
Method
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
Size(MB) ↓
Points(M) ↓
Time(s) ↓
Aquarium-20
AbsGS
0.8060
21.82
0.2288
183.16
0.7700
828
3DGS
0.8692
22.66
0.1607
177.44
0.7500
942
Mip-Splatting
0.8507
22.52
0.1764
272.31
1.1300
1034
Pixel-GS
0.8653
25.77
0.1582
268.57
1.1400
900
GDAGS
0.8418
22.18
0.1865
159.86
0.7900
743
Mini-Splatting
0.8509
23.81
0.1659
810.17
3.4300
1329
Appendix
Table A4: Per-scene quality and efficiency on Deep Blending.
Scene
Method
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
Size(MB) ↓
Points(M) ↓
Time(s) ↓
Bicycle
AbsGS
0.7817
25.26
0.1720
1411.36
5.9700
1084
3DGS
0.7666
25.28
0.2081
1154.55
4.8800
1084
Mip-Splatting
0.7924
25.55
0.1669
1977.66
8.2300
1674
Pixel-GS
0.7817
25.26
0.1720
2142.21
9.0600
1639
GDAGS
0.7899
25.42
0.1696
1437.29
6.0800
807
Mini-Splatting
0.7165
23.57
0.2508
1425.72
6.0300
1031
Appendix
Table A5: Per-scene quality and efficiency on Mip-NeRF 360.
Scene
Method
SSIM ↑
PSNR ↑
LPIPS ↓
Size(MB) ↓
Points(M) ↓
Time(s) ↓
Train
AbsGS
0.8166
21.64
0.1942
230.86
0.9800
401
3DGS
0.8202
22.04
0.1963
258.35
1.0900
510
Mip-Splatting
0.8266
21.87
0.1893
354.45
1.4700
611
Pixel-GS
0.8279
22.13
0.1780
906.22
3.8300
838
GDAGS
0.8129
21.53
0.2068
223.96
0.9500
326
Mini-Splatting
0.7099
18.77
0.3234
937.32
3.9600
855
Appendix
Table A6: Per-scene quality and efficiency on Tanks & Temples.
Figure 5: Qualitative comparison of Gaussian distributions. Our curvature-aware strategy allocates sparse and elongated Gaussians to smooth surfaces, while preserving sharp boundaries with compact fine-scale primitives.
Method
Precision(%) ↑
Recall(%) ↑
F-score(%) ↑
Points ↓
ACD-GS
66.34
91.21
76.81
642,044
AbsGS
69.58
93.33
79.72
1,693,016
3DGS
60.52
79.08
68.57
1,552,777
GDAGS
66.13
88.80
75.81
1,582,823
Mini-Splatting
56.04
85.58
67.72
4,495,856
Mip-Splatting
66.02
88.60
78.03
2,343,461
Appendix
Table A7: Geometric reconstruction evaluation using Precision, Recall, and F-score.
3D Gaussian Splatting has emerged as a powerful scene representation for real-time novel-view synthesis. However, its standard adaptive density control relies on screen-space positional gradients, which do not distinguish between geometric misplacement and frequency aliasing, often leading to either over-blurred high-frequency textures or inefficient over-densification. We present a structure-aware densification framework. Our key insight is that the decision to subdivide a Gaussian should be driven by an explicit comparison between its projected screen-space extent and the local structure of the texture it seeks to represent. We introduce a multi-scale frequency analysis combining structure tensors with Laplacian scale space analysis to estimate the dominant frequency at each pixel, enabling robust supervision across varying texture scales. Based on this analysis, we define η, a per-Gaussian, per-axis frequency violation metric that indicates when a primitive may be under-resolving local texture details. Unlike methods that perform isotropic splitting (e.g., splitting each Gaussian into two smaller ones with uniform shape), our approach performs anisotropic splitting. For each axis with high η, we compute a split factor to better resolve the local frequency content. We further introduce a multiview consistency criterion that aggregates η observations across multiple views. By performing densification early and faster, we skip the lengthy iterative densification phases required by baseline methods and achieve significantly faster convergence. Experiments on standard benchmarks demonstrate that our method also achieves superior reconstruction quality, particularly in high-frequency regions.
Linjie Lyu, Ayush Tewari, Jianchun Chen +2
Max-Planck-Institut für Informatik, Germany · Cambridge University, United Kingdom · Saarbrücken Research Center for Visual Computing, Interaction, and Artificial Intelligence (VIA), Germany
3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) achieves real-time novel-view synthesis by optimizing millions of anisotropic Gaussians, yet its training remains expensive, with the backward pass dominating runtime in the post-densification refinement phase. We observe substantial update redundancy in this phase: many sampled views have near-plateaued losses and provide diminishing gradient benefits, but standard training still runs full backpropagation. We propose SkipGS with a novel view-adaptive backward gating mechanism for efficient post-densification training. SkipGS always performs the forward pass to update per-view loss statistics, and selectively skips backward passes when the sampled view's loss is consistent with its recent per-view baseline, while enforcing a minimum backward budget for stable optimization. On Mip-NeRF 360, compared to 3DGS, SkipGS reduces end-to-end training time by 23.1%, driven by a 42.0% reduction in post-densification time, with comparable reconstruction quality. Because it only changes when to backpropagate without modifying the renderer, representation, or loss, SkipGS is plug-and-play and compatible with other complementary efficiency strategies, enabling additive speedups. Code is available at https://github.com/ASU-ESIC-FAN-Lab/SkipGS.
Recent advances in 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) have enabled impressive real-time photorealistic rendering. However, conventional training pipelines inherently assume full multi-view consistency among input images, which makes them sensitive to distractors that violate this assumption and cause visual artifacts. In this work, we revisit an underexplored aspect of 3DGS: its inherent ability to suppress inconsistent signals. Building on this insight, we propose PDF-GS (Progressive Distractor Filtering for Robust 3D Gaussian Splatting), a framework that amplifies this self-filtering property through a progressive multi-phase optimization. The progressive filtering phases gradually remove distractors by exploiting discrepancy cues, while the following reconstruction phase restores fine-grained, view-consistent details from the purified Gaussian representation. Through this iterative refinement, PDF-GS achieves robust, high-fidelity, and distractor-free reconstructions, consistently outperforming baselines across diverse datasets and challenging real-world conditions. Moreover, our approach is lightweight and easily adaptable to existing 3DGS frameworks, requiring no architectural changes or additional inference overhead, leading to a new state-of-the-art performance. The code is publicly available at https://github.com/kangrnin/PDF-GS.