Incoherent Deformation, Not Capacity: Diagnosing and Mitigating Overfitting in Dynamic Gaussian Splatting
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Dynamic 3D Gaussian Splatting methods achieve strong training-view PSNR on monocular video but generalize poorly: on the D-NeRF benchmark we measure an average train-test PSNR gap of 6.18 dB, rising to 11 dB on individual scenes. We report two findings that together account for most of that gap. Finding 1 (the role of splitting). A systematic ablation of the Adaptive Density Control pipeline (split, clone, prune, frequency, threshold, schedule) shows that splitting is responsible for over 80% of the gap: disabling split collapses the cloud from 44K to 3K Gaussians and the gap from 6.18 dB to 1.15 dB. Across all threshold-varying ablations, gap is log-linear in count (r = 0.995, bootstrap 95% CI [0.99, 1.00]), which suggests a capacity-based explanation. Finding 2 (the role of deformation coherence). We show that the capacity explanation is incomplete. A local-smoothness penalty on the per-Gaussian deformation field -- Elastic Energy Regularization (EER) -- reduces the gap by 40.8% while growing the cloud by 85%. Measuring per-Gaussian strain directly on trained checkpoints, EER reduces mean strain by 99.72% (median 99.80%) across all 8 scenes; on 8/8 scenes the median Gaussian under EER is less strained than the 1st-percentile (best-behaved) Gaussian under baseline. Alongside EER, we evaluate two further regularizers: GAD, a loss-rate-aware densification threshold, and PTDrop, a jitter-weighted Gaussian dropout. GAD+EER reduces the gap by 48%; adding PTDrop and a soft growth cap reaches 57%. We confirm that coherence generalizes to (a) a different deformation architecture (Deformable-3DGS, +40.6% gap reduction at re-tuned lambda), and (b) real monocular video (4 HyperNeRF scenes, reducing the mean PSNR gap by 14.9% at the same lambda as D-NeRF, with near-zero quality cost). The overfitting in dynamic 3DGS is driven by incoherent deformation, not parameter count.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 22 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 17 Apr 2026.
Builds on
20 of 22 references.
References · 20
- 20233D Gaussian Splatting for Real-Time Radiance Field Renderingcited by 6,141
- 2020D-NeRF: Neural Radiance Fields for Dynamic Scenescited by 1,459
- 2020Nerfies: Deformable Neural Radiance Fieldscited by 1,194
- 20234D Gaussian Splatting for Real-Time Dynamic Scene Renderingcited by 1,144
- 2023Deformable 3D Gaussians for High-Fidelity Monocular Dynamic Scene Reconstructioncited by 753
- 2023SC-GS: Sparse-Controlled Gaussian Splatting for Editable Dynamic Scenescited by 339
- 2024Mini-Splatting: Representing Scenes with a Constrained Number of Gaussianscited by 208
- 2024Taming 3DGS: High-Quality Radiance Fields with Limited Resourcescited by 198
- 2024Revising Densification in Gaussian Splattingcited by 127
- 2024Pixel-GS: Density Control with Pixel-aware Gradient for 3D Gaussian Splattingcited by 111
- 2024Per-Gaussian Embedding-Based Deformation for Deformable 3D Gaussian Splattingcited by 104
- 2024PUP 3D-GS: Principled Uncertainty Pruning for 3D Gaussian Splattingcited by 85
8 more
- 2024AbsGS: Recovering Fine Details for 3D Gaussian Splattingcited by 80
- 2025DropGaussian: Structural Regularization for Sparse-view Gaussian Splattingcited by 65
- 2025DropoutGS: Dropping Out Gaussians for Better Sparse-view Renderingcited by 29
- 2025Steepest Descent Density Control for Compact 3D Gaussian Splattingcited by 13
- 2024Efficient Density Control for 3D Gaussian Splattingcited by 12
- 2025Improving Adaptive Density Control for 3D Gaussian Splattingcited by 7
- 2025Gradient-Direction-Aware Density Control for 3D Gaussian Splattingcited by 7
- 2024Monocular Dynamic Gaussian Splatting: Fast, Brittle, and Scene Complexity Rulescited by 6
Built on by
Not cited yet.