pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.29549 · v1 · pith:CM5A73IDnew · submitted 2026-05-28 · 💻 cs.CV

Learning Representations from 3D Gaussian Splats

Julia Farganus , Krzysztof \.Zurawicki , Arkadiusz Gawe{\l} , Weronika Jakubowska , Halina Kwa\'snicka This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-29 08:36 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV
keywords 3D Gaussian Splattinggeometric deep learningscene classificationrepresentation learningpoint-based modelsgraph-based modelslatent representations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Point-based and graph-based models learn distinct representations from 3D Gaussian splats, with Gaussian attributes affecting quality.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper benchmarks point-based and graph-based deep learning models for classifying 3D scenes encoded as Gaussian splats. It tests end-to-end classification, linear probing, and clustering on both standard point cloud data and new Gaussian splat datasets. The work aims to determine which architectures are best suited for turning Gaussian splat scenes into useful latent representations for scene understanding. A reader might care because 3D Gaussian splatting is widely used for novel view synthesis, yet its potential for tasks like classification is not well studied, so this could inform how to adapt existing 3D models to this representation.

Core claim

The study shows consistent differences between architectural families in their ability to process 3D Gaussian splat data, and demonstrates that Gaussian-specific attributes such as scale, rotation, and opacity influence the quality of the learned representations when used as input features.

What carries the argument

Comparative evaluation of point-based and graph-based models on Gaussian splat representations, assessed through latent embeddings from classification, probing, and clustering tasks.

If this is right

  • Point-based and graph-based models show consistent differences in performance on Gaussian splat data.
  • Gaussian-specific attributes impact the quality of learned representations.
  • Different architectures are more or less suitable for 3DGS inputs.
  • Evaluation through multiple methods like linear probing confirms the differences.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • New architectures tailored to Gaussian splats could outperform adapted point cloud models.
  • The results may apply to other downstream tasks such as 3D object detection using splat representations.
  • Larger and more diverse Gaussian splat datasets could strengthen or refine the observed patterns.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen point-based and graph-based models together with the selected datasets are representative enough to draw general conclusions about the suitability of geometry-aware architectures for 3D Gaussian splat representations.

What would settle it

Finding a set of models or datasets where architectural families do not show consistent differences or where Gaussian attributes have no effect on representation quality would falsify the main claims.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.29549 by Arkadiusz Gawe{\l}, Halina Kwa\'snicka, Julia Farganus, Krzysztof \.Zurawicki, Weronika Jakubowska.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Samples of airplane class from datasets (a) ShapeSplat, (b) MACGS, (c) ModelNet40 and (d) ShapeNet. Gaussian Splatting representation provides is generally more detailed, but can suffer from artifacts as it’s visible in (b). Mesh representations are smooth, but can’t be directly processed by CNN’s. technique has been mainly employed for high quality rendering purposes with limited research exploring its po… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Gaussian Splatting processing via GNNs. The input comprises spa￾tial coordinates and a subset of auxiliary splat attributes (excluding spherical harmonics). The object is formulated as a graph and processed using the general message passing paradigm (1). Global feature aggregation (2) is performed via max pooling, resulting in latent vector (3), followed by an MLP classifier (4). 4 Experiments Our experime… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: T-SNE visualization of ShapeSplat. Images, from left to right present architecture/features: (a) PointNet++ / p, (b) PointNet++ / psqo, (c) Spline / p and (d) Spline / psqo. PointNet++ obtains visually more compact clusters (a), especially after including Gaussian splat features (b). On the other hand, Spline struggles to separate classes (c), with more observable spread when incorporating extra features (… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Clustering Evaluation. Relation between AMI from k-Means and stan￾dard deviation of mean Log Probabilities from GMM. Marker colors represent a unique architecture, and their style a given feature. PointNet architectures, augmenting positions with Gaussian features (psqo) pro￾vides no significant benefit over the baseline (p), although PointNet++ notably achieves its peak Log Ratio using sqo alone. Converse… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Linear probing F1 Score for each feature configuration. Percentage value above the bar containers denote the relative gain or lost when using p. reflect semantically relevant connections. Examining the architectures, DGCNN appears to struggle with consistently capturing local geometric structure due to the dynamic recomputation of the k-NN graph at every layer. As it com￾putes distances in feature space, t… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) is a recent approach for scene rendering. Although primarily designed for view synthesis, its potential for scene understanding tasks remains underexplored. In this work, we conduct a comparative evaluation of various geometric deep learning architectures for the classification of 3D scenes represented using Gaussian Splatting. We benchmark point-based and graph-based models across both traditional point cloud datasets and dedicated Gaussian Splatting datasets. Scenes are embedded into latent representations, which are evaluated through end-to-end classification, linear probing, and clustering analysis. Our study provides insight into the suitability of different geometry-aware architectures and input feature configurations for learning effective 3D Gaussian Splat representations. The results highlight consistent differences between architectural families and reveal the impact of Gaussian-specific attributes on the quality of representation.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper conducts a comparative benchmark of point-based and graph-based geometric deep learning architectures applied to 3D scene classification where scenes are represented as 3D Gaussian Splats. It evaluates models on both standard point-cloud datasets and dedicated GS datasets, extracting latent representations that are assessed via end-to-end classification, linear probing, and clustering. The central claims are that architectural families exhibit consistent performance differences and that Gaussian-specific attributes improve representation quality.

Significance. If the benchmark selections prove representative, the multi-protocol evaluation supplies practical guidance on architecture and feature choices for downstream 3DGS scene-understanding tasks. The purely empirical design with three complementary protocols (end-to-end, linear probing, clustering) is a methodological strength that allows direct comparison of representation quality across input configurations.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4] §4 (Experimental Setup): the claim of 'consistent differences between architectural families' rests on a narrow selection of point-based and graph-based models; omission of attention-based or equivariant families means the observed patterns may be artifacts of the chosen subset rather than general properties of geometry-aware architectures on 3DGS inputs.
  2. [§4.3] §4.3 (Datasets and Results): the impact of Gaussian-specific attributes is demonstrated only on the selected traditional point-cloud and dedicated GS datasets; without explicit justification or ablation showing that these datasets cover diverse scene types, the general conclusion about attribute utility risks being benchmark-specific.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract and introduction would benefit from an explicit enumeration (or table reference) of the exact models and datasets used, to allow readers to assess representativeness immediately.
  2. Notation for Gaussian attributes (e.g., opacity, scale) should be defined once in a dedicated subsection rather than inline in multiple result paragraphs.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on the scope of our benchmark. We address each major comment below and indicate where revisions will be made to clarify limitations without altering the core empirical findings.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (Experimental Setup): the claim of 'consistent differences between architectural families' rests on a narrow selection of point-based and graph-based models; omission of attention-based or equivariant families means the observed patterns may be artifacts of the chosen subset rather than general properties of geometry-aware architectures on 3DGS inputs.

    Authors: The manuscript explicitly scopes the study to point-based and graph-based families (see abstract and §4), as these are the architectures most directly applicable to 3D Gaussian Splats when treated as attributed point sets or graphs. The reported 'consistent differences between architectural families' refer specifically to performance patterns between these two families across the three evaluation protocols. We agree that attention-based and equivariant models represent important additional families; their omission means the patterns cannot be claimed as fully general across all geometry-aware architectures. In revision we will add a dedicated limitations paragraph in §4 noting this scope and recommending future inclusion of such models (e.g., Point Transformer variants) for broader validation. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [§4.3] §4.3 (Datasets and Results): the impact of Gaussian-specific attributes is demonstrated only on the selected traditional point-cloud and dedicated GS datasets; without explicit justification or ablation showing that these datasets cover diverse scene types, the general conclusion about attribute utility risks being benchmark-specific.

    Authors: The datasets comprise standard point-cloud benchmarks (ModelNet40, ShapeNet, ScanObjectNN) together with dedicated 3DGS scene datasets chosen because they are the primary publicly available resources that support both point-cloud and Gaussian-splat representations. These span synthetic objects, real indoor scans, and outdoor scenes. We acknowledge that an explicit justification of scene diversity and an accompanying discussion of potential benchmark specificity are currently absent. We will insert a short paragraph in §4.3 that (i) lists the scene categories represented, (ii) references prior usage of these datasets in the 3D vision literature, and (iii) states the limitation that broader scene diversity remains an open question for future work. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: purely empirical benchmarking study

full rationale

This is an empirical benchmarking paper that compares point-based and graph-based architectures on 3D Gaussian Splatting inputs via end-to-end classification, linear probing, and clustering. The abstract and described methodology contain no derivations, equations, fitted parameters presented as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. All claims derive from direct experimental results on chosen datasets and models, making the work self-contained against external benchmarks with no reduction of outputs to inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Empirical benchmarking paper with no mathematical derivations, fitted parameters, or new postulates.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5680 in / 949 out tokens · 25214 ms · 2026-06-29T08:36:43.463533+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 15 canonical work pages · 7 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Nature Methods15, 399 – 400 (2018), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:44115671

    Altman, N., Krzywinski, M.: The curse(s) of dimensionality. Nature Methods15, 399 – 400 (2018), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:44115671

    2018

  2. [2]

    Bonilla, S., Zhang, S., Psychogyios, D., Stoyanov, D., Vasconcelos, F., Bano, S.: Gaussian pancakes: Geometrically-regularized 3d gaussian splatting for realistic endoscopic reconstruction (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.06128

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Bronstein, M.M., Bruna, J., Cohen, T., Veličković, P.: Geometric deep learning: Grids, groups, graphs, geodesics, and gauges (2021), https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.13478

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    ShapeNet: An Information-Rich 3D Model Repository

    Chang, A.X., Funkhouser, T., Guibas, L., Hanrahan, P., Huang, Q., Li, Z., Savarese, S., Savva, M., Song, S., Su, H., et al.: Shapenet: An information-rich 3d model repository. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.03012 (2015)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) pp

    Chen, Y., Liu, J., Zhang, X., Qi, X., Jia, J.: Voxelnext: Fully sparse voxelnet for 3d object detection and tracking. 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) pp. 21674–21683 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13421 (2024)

    Chopin, J., Dahyot, R.: Performance of gaussian mixture model classifiers on em- bedded feature spaces. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.13421 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    In: ICLR Workshop on Representation Learning on Graphs and Manifolds (2019)

    Fey,M.,Lenssen,J.E.:FastgraphrepresentationlearningwithPyTorchGeometric. In: ICLR Workshop on Representation Learning on Graphs and Manifolds (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Fey, M., Lenssen, J.E., Weichert, F., Müller, H.: Splinecnn: Fast geometric deep learning with continuous b-spline kernels. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 869–877 (2018)

    2018

  9. [9]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Hassani, K., Haley, M.: Unsupervised multi-task feature learning on point clouds. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 8160–8171 (2019)

    2019

  10. [10]

    Kerbl, B., Kopanas, G., Leimkühler, T., Drettakis, G.: 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering (2023), https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.04079

    work page arXiv 2023

  11. [11]

    In: 2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA)

    Khan, M., Fazlali, H., Sharma, D., Cao, T., Bai, D., Ren, Y., Liu, B.: Autosplat: Constrained gaussian splatting for autonomous driving scene reconstruction. In: 2025 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). pp. 8315–8321 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRA55743.2025.11127564

    work page doi:10.1109/icra55743.2025.11127564 2025

  12. [12]

    2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition pp

    Landrieu, L., Simonovsky, M.: Large-scale point cloud semantic seg- mentation with superpoint graphs. 2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition pp. 4558–4567 (2017), https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:4396837

    2018

  13. [13]

    In: 2025 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV)

    Ma, Q., Li, Y., Ren, B., Sebe, N., Konukoglu, E., Gevers, T., Van Gool, L., Paudel, D.P.: A large-scale dataset of gaussian splats and their self-supervised pretraining. In: 2025 International Conference on 3D Vision (3DV). pp. 145–155. IEEE (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.10906 Learning Representations from 3D Gaussian Splats 15

    work page arXiv 2025

  14. [14]

    World Scientific Annual Review of Artificial Intelligence 1, 2440001 (2023)

    Pang, Y., Tay, E.H.F., Yuan, L., Chen, Z.: Masked autoencoders for 3d point cloud self-supervised learning. World Scientific Annual Review of Artificial Intelligence 1, 2440001 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

    Qi, C.R., Su, H., Mo, K., Guibas, L.J.: Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation (2017), https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.00593

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    Qi, C.R., Yi, L., Su, H., Guibas, L.J.: Pointnet++: Deep hierarchical feature learn- ing on point sets in a metric space (2017), https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.02413

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    Advances in neural information processing systems35, 23192–23204 (2022)

    Qian, G., Li, Y., Peng, H., Mai, J., Hammoud, H., Elhoseiny, M., Ghanem, B.: Pointnext: Revisiting pointnet++ with improved training and scaling strategies. Advances in neural information processing systems35, 23192–23204 (2022)

    2022

  18. [18]

    Su, H., Maji, S., Kalogerakis, E., Learned-Miller, E.: Multi-view convolutional neural networks for 3d shape recognition (2015), https://arxiv.org/abs/1505.00880

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  19. [19]

    In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2018)

    Veličković, P., Cucurull, G., Casanova, A., Romero, A., Liò, P., Bengio, Y.: Graph attention networks. In: International Conference on Learning Representations (2018)

    2018

  20. [20]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (tog)38(5), 1–12 (2019)

    Wang, Y., Sun, Y., Liu, Z., Sarma, S.E., Bronstein, M.M., Solomon, J.M.: Dynamic graph cnn for learning on point clouds. ACM Transactions on Graphics (tog)38(5), 1–12 (2019)

    2019

  21. [21]

    Wu, W., Qi, Z., Fuxin, L.: Pointconv: Deep convolutional networks on 3d point clouds (2020), https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.07246

    work page arXiv 2020

  22. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Wu, Z., Song, S., Khosla, A., Yu, F., Zhang, L., Tang, X., Xiao, J.: 3d shapenets: A deep representation for volumetric shapes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 1912–1920 (2015)

    1912

  23. [23]

    Xin, Y., Liu, Y., Xie, X., Li, X.: Learning unified representation of 3d gaussian splatting (2025), https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.22917

    work page arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Xu, Y., Fan, T., Xu, M., Zeng, L., Qiao, Y.: Spidercnn: Deep learning on point sets with parameterized convolutional filters (2018), https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.11527

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  25. [25]

    Yan, X.: Pointnet/pointnet++ pytorch (2019)

    2019

  26. [26]

    Journal of Student Research10(11 2021)

    Yang, Z., Goldsztein, G.: Classification using 3d point cloud and 2d image on abstract objects. Journal of Student Research10(11 2021)

    2021

  27. [27]

    Displays 79, 102456 (2023)

    Zhang, H., Wang, C., Tian, S., Lu, B., Zhang, L., Ning, X., Bai, X.: Deep learning- based 3d point cloud classification: A systematic survey and outlook. Displays 79, 102456 (2023). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2023.102456, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0141938223000896

    work page doi:10.1016/j.displa.2023.102456 2023

  28. [28]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2025)

    Zhang, R., Zhu, H., Zhao, J., Zhang, Q., Cao, X., Ma, Z.: Mitigating ambiguities in 3d classification with gaussian splatting. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Zhang, R., Zhu, H., Zhao, J., Zhang, Q., Cao, X., Ma, Z.: Mitigating ambiguities in 3d classification with gaussian splatting. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 27275–27284 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    In: 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)

    Zhao, H., Jiang, L., Fu, C.W., Jia, J.: Pointweb: Enhancing local neighborhood features for point cloud processing. In: 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 5560–5568 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    Zhou, Y., Tuzel, O.: Voxelnet: End-to-end learning for point cloud based 3d object detection (2017), https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.06396

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017