Rendering-Aware Bayesian 3D Gaussian Splatting with Native Uncertainty and Adaptive Complexity Control
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
3D Gaussian splatting (3DGS) is a strong representation for real-time novel-view synthesis, but its standard training pipeline relies on point estimates and hand-tuned heuristics, providing no native uncertainty or principled complexity control. This is most limiting under sparse views or fixed acquisition budgets, where a model must identify weakly supported geometry and select informative views. We introduce a rendering-aware Bayesian 3DGS framework that tracks Gaussian geometry with a Normal-Inverse-Wishart posterior over means and covariances using renderer-derived surrogate summaries. An optional Dirichlet-process extension adds a probabilistic component-usage signal, and the training schedule makes the closed-form versus approximate inference boundary explicit. Re-rendering posterior geometry samples yields native predictive uncertainty for interval calibration and active view selection. In a fixed-budget 16-to-32 active-view task, native NIW acquisition improves PSNR by +0.453 dB and LPIPS by -0.0146 over a scoring-only 3-member standard-ensemble baseline, winning 29/39 scene-seed pairs and 10/13 scene means; it also improves over PPU-style (+0.355 dB) and NIW-proxy (+0.401 dB) acquisition. NIW native intervals reduce 95% coverage error by about 17x relative to a shared proxy (0.046 vs. 0.796) and are about 10x closer to nominal coverage than a 3-member deep ensemble (0.047 vs. 0.454) at roughly one-third the training cost. As a reconstruction compatibility check, paired NIW-vs-standard analysis over 39 scene-seed runs yields +0.030 dB PSNR with 1.6% additional training time. These results position Bayesian 3DGS as a practical probabilistic scene representation for decision-facing tasks such as active view selection.
Key facts. Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 42 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Jul 2026.
Builds on
24 of 42 references.
References · 24
- 2014Explaining and Harnessing Adversarial Examplescited by 7,287
- 2017Towards Deep Learning Models Resistant to Adversarial Attackscited by 6,326
- 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,928
- 2019Natural Adversarial Examplescited by 1,401
- 2017BadNets: Identifying Vulnerabilities in the Machine Learning Model Supply Chaincited by 1,052
- 2019Adversarial Examples Are Not Bugs, They Are Featurescited by 950
- 2016Universal adversarial perturbationscited by 774
- 2018Spectral Signatures in Backdoor Attackscited by 457
- 2019Hidden Trigger Backdoor Attackscited by 359
- 2020Noise or Signal: The Role of Image Backgrounds in Object Recognitioncited by 342
- 2019High Frequency Component Helps Explain the Generalization of Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 310
- 2019A Fourier Perspective on Model Robustness in Computer Visioncited by 288
12 more
- 2019Simple Black-box Adversarial Attackscited by 249
- 2017Generative Adversarial Perturbationscited by 153
- 2020Backdoor Attacks Against Deep Learning Systems in the Physical Worldcited by 129
- 2017Fast Feature Fool: A data independent approach to universal adversarial perturbationscited by 65
- 2021On Generating Transferable Targeted Perturbationscited by 65
- 2017Art of singular vectors and universal adversarial perturbationscited by 49
- 2022Spurious Features Everywhere -- Large-Scale Detection of Harmful Spurious Features in ImageNetcited by 41
- 2020Practical No-box Adversarial Attacks against DNNscited by 32
- 2018The Adversarial Attack and Detection under the Fisher Information Metriccited by 18
- 2022Backdoor Vulnerabilities in Normally Trained Deep Learning Modelscited by 12
- 2022Practical No-box Adversarial Attacks with Training-free Hybrid Image Transformationcited by 8
- 2025Do ImageNet-trained models learn shortcuts? The impact of frequency shortcuts on generalizationcited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 2.
2 papers.