pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.00885 · v1 · pith:F3SU37VSnew · submitted 2026-07-01 · 💻 cs.CV · cs.AI

Improving Sparse-View 3DGS Generalization via Flat Minima Optimization

Kangmin Seo , Sangeek Hyun , MinKyu Lee , Jae-Pil Heo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-02 14:11 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CV cs.AI
keywords 3D Gaussian Splattingsparse-view novel view synthesisflat minima optimizationgeneralizationoverfittingneural rendering
0
0 comments X

The pith

Adapting flat minima optimization to 3D Gaussian Splatting improves generalization from sparse input views without architectural changes.

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

The paper establishes that 3DGS overfits when trained on few views because its optimization reaches sharp minima that do not hold for unseen viewpoints. It shows that regularizing the process with controlled perturbations of Gaussian parameters, scaled by each Gaussian's anisotropy and the current training stage, plus brief periodic resets of non-positional attributes, steers the solution toward flatter minima. These flatter minima produce reconstructions that remain accurate under viewpoint changes. The approach requires no modification to the underlying 3DGS representation or renderer, only changes to the training loop. If the claim holds, sparse-view capture becomes more practical for applications that currently demand dense image sets.

Core claim

Viewing Gaussian parameters as weights, the method applies flat-minima principles by injecting controlled perturbations that respect each Gaussian's anisotropic shape and the stage of training; periodic reinitialization of non-positional parameters for short windows further stabilizes the search for flat regions, yielding solutions that generalize better to novel views while retaining fine detail.

What carries the argument

Controlled Gaussian perturbations scaled by anisotropy and training progress, together with periodic reinitialization of non-positional parameters.

If this is right

  • Reconstructions exhibit higher PSNR, SSIM, and lower LPIPS on held-out views from LLFF and Mip-NeRF360 under sparse supervision.
  • Output images are sharper and exhibit fewer floating artifacts when rendered from novel viewpoints.
  • The same 3DGS pipeline can be used without redesigning the representation or the renderer.
  • Training still finishes at comparable speed because the added operations are lightweight and periodic.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same perturbation schedule might transfer to other explicit scene representations that suffer from sparse-view overfitting.
  • If the flat-minima effect scales with scene complexity, the method could reduce the number of required input images for large outdoor environments.
  • Periodic reinitialization might interact with the densification heuristic in 3DGS; testing whether it alters the final Gaussian count would clarify the mechanism.

Load-bearing premise

That perturbations chosen according to each Gaussian's shape and training stage, plus short reinitialization windows, will locate flatter minima that reduce overfitting to the sparse training views.

What would settle it

An ablation that disables the anisotropy-aware perturbations and reinitialization on the same LLFF or Mip-NeRF360 sparse-view splits and measures whether novel-view PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS remain unchanged or worsen.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.00885 by Jae-Pil Heo, Kangmin Seo, MinKyu Lee, Sangeek Hyun.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of our flat minima optimization framework for sparse-view 3D Gaus￾sian Splatting (3DGS). Our approach enhances generalization by introducing pertur￾bations to Gaussian positions during training. To account for the geometric structure, we scale perturbations according to the anisotropic extent of each Gaussian and ap￾ply them stochastically at the level of individual Gaussians. In addition, we peri… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Optimization procedure of our method. At iteration t, we temporarily perturb the Gaussian model to obtain ˆθt, render it, and compute the standard 3DGS recon￾struction loss L( ˆθt) without introducing an additional loss term or auxiliary objective. The perturbation is then discarded, while ∇L( ˆθt) updates the original model from θt to θt+1. proving generalization. To adapt this principle to the geometric … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Qualitative comparison in LLFF and Mip-NeRF360 datasets. Compared to prior methods, our approach reconstructs sharper details and more geometrically con￾sistent structures, especially in under-constrained regions such as planar surfaces and occlusion boundaries. While baselines often suffer from spatial misalignment or blur￾ring, our method produces visually coherent and high-fidelity results, demonstratin… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Perturbation robustness analysis on LLFF dataset under 3-view setting. Our method shows smaller performance degradation across perturbation magnitudes com￾pared to 3DGS [12] and DropGaussian [21]. 4.1 Quantitative Evaluation Tab. 1 and Tab. 2 summarize the quantitative results across all sparse-view benchmarks. Our method outperforms the compared prior approaches across datasets and view settings. Notably,… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Training and test PSNR trajectories with and without Gaussian reinitializa￾tion on the LLFF fern scene under the 3-view setting. Without reinitialization, training PSNR keeps rising steadily while test PSNR plateaus, indicating overfitting. In con￾trast, periodic reinitialization moderates the growth of training PSNR but enables continuous improvements in test PSNR, suggesting better generalization. The sh… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Recent advances in neural rendering have established 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) as a highly efficient representation for novel view synthesis, enabling fast training and real-time rendering with strong fidelity. However, when supervision is limited to sparse input views, 3DGS tends to overfit to the observed images and generalize poorly to unseen viewpoints. We address this challenge from the perspective of flat minima (FM) optimization, which seeks solutions that remain stable under small parameter perturbations. Viewing Gaussian parameters as trainable weights, we adapt FM principles to the geometric and dynamic nature of 3DGS with a lightweight training framework. Our method regularizes optimization with controlled Gaussian perturbations that account for each Gaussian's anisotropy and the training progress, preserving fine details while improving robustness to sparse-view overfitting. To further stabilize this flat minima optimization process, we introduce periodic reinitialization, which temporarily returns non-positional parameters to their initial states for a short window. Together, these techniques integrate seamlessly into existing 3DGS pipelines without architectural changes. Experiments on LLFF and Mip-NeRF360 datasets demonstrate improved quantitative metrics and perceptual quality under sparse-view supervision, producing reconstructions that are sharper, more stable, and better generalized to novel viewpoints.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that adapting flat-minima optimization to 3D Gaussian Splatting via anisotropy-aware controlled perturbations of Gaussian parameters (accounting for training progress) plus periodic reinitialization of non-positional parameters yields improved robustness to sparse-view overfitting. The resulting solutions are said to generalize better to novel views while preserving fine details, with no architectural changes to 3DGS required. Experiments on LLFF and Mip-NeRF360 under sparse supervision are reported to show gains in quantitative metrics and perceptual quality.

Significance. If the central mechanism is shown to produce demonstrably flatter minima and the gains are attributable to that property rather than generic regularization, the work would supply a lightweight, plug-in regularization strategy for a widely used representation. This could be practically useful in low-data novel-view synthesis settings.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim attributes improved sparse-view generalization to flat-minima optimization, yet the abstract (and the provided manuscript excerpt) contains no indication that flatness was measured (e.g., via sharpness metrics, Hessian trace, or loss under parameter perturbations) or that the obtained solutions are flatter than standard 3DGS training. Without this link, metric improvements on LLFF/Mip-NeRF360 could arise from any form of regularization.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract: the description of the perturbation schedule and reinitialization window is given at a high level only; no equations, pseudocode, or hyper-parameter values are supplied, preventing assessment of whether the method is parameter-free or how the anisotropy and progress terms are defined.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: baseline methods, exact sparsity levels, quantitative tables, error bars, and statistical significance are not mentioned, making it impossible to judge the magnitude or reliability of the reported gains.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each major comment point-by-point below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim attributes improved sparse-view generalization to flat-minima optimization, yet the abstract (and the provided manuscript excerpt) contains no indication that flatness was measured (e.g., via sharpness metrics, Hessian trace, or loss under parameter perturbations) or that the obtained solutions are flatter than standard 3DGS training. Without this link, metric improvements on LLFF/Mip-NeRF360 could arise from any form of regularization.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract does not report explicit flatness measurements and that this weakens the direct attribution to flat minima. In the revised manuscript we will add quantitative analysis (e.g., sharpness metrics and approximate Hessian trace) comparing the loss landscape of our method against standard 3DGS training on the same sparse-view setups. These results will be placed in the experiments or analysis section and referenced from the abstract to establish that the observed gains are linked to flatter minima rather than generic regularization. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the description of the perturbation schedule and reinitialization window is given at a high level only; no equations, pseudocode, or hyper-parameter values are supplied, preventing assessment of whether the method is parameter-free or how the anisotropy and progress terms are defined.

    Authors: The full manuscript contains the mathematical definitions of the anisotropy-aware perturbation (including the anisotropy and training-progress factors), the periodic reinitialization schedule, and the complete hyper-parameter table in Section 3 and the supplementary material. To make the abstract more self-contained we will revise it to include the key equations for the perturbation term and a brief reference to the reinitialization window, while ensuring the methods section already supplies pseudocode and all numerical values. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: empirical adaptation of known flat-minima principles verified on external benchmarks

full rationale

The paper describes a lightweight training framework that adapts established flat-minima optimization ideas to 3DGS using controlled perturbations (anisotropy- and progress-aware) plus periodic reinitialization. These are presented as regularization techniques integrated into existing pipelines, with claims resting on quantitative and perceptual improvements measured on LLFF and Mip-NeRF360 under sparse-view conditions. No equations, self-citations, or fitted quantities are shown that reduce the reported gains to a definition or input by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained: the method is an engineering adaptation whose validity is assessed against independent dataset metrics rather than tautological re-labeling of its own components.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated or identifiable.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5757 in / 1153 out tokens · 34113 ms · 2026-07-02T14:11:51.224994+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

37 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

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

    Barron, J.T., Mildenhall, B., Verbin, D., Srinivasan, P.P., Hedman, P.: Mip- nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 5470–5479 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics

    Bisla, D., Wang, J., Choromanska, A.: Low-pass filtering sgd for recovering flat optima in the deep learning optimization landscape. In: International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics. pp. 8299–8339. PMLR (2022)

    2022

  3. [3]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems38, 115939–115968 (2026)

    Chen, K., Zhong, Y., Li, Z., Lin, J., Chen, Y., Qin, M., Wang, H.: Quantifying and alleviating co-adaptation in sparse-view 3d gaussian splatting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems38, 115939–115968 (2026)

    2026

  4. [4]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition

    Chung, J., Oh, J., Lee, K.M.: Depth-regularized optimization for 3d gaussian splat- ting in few-shot images. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 811–820 (2024)

    2024

  5. [5]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning

    Dinh, L., Pascanu, R., Bengio, S., Bengio, Y.: Sharp minima can generalize for deep nets. In: International Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 1019–1028. PMLR (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Sharpness-Aware Minimization for Efficiently Improving Generalization

    Foret, P., Kleiner, A., Mobahi, H., Neyshabur, B.: Sharpness-aware minimization for efficiently improving generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.01412 (2020)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  7. [7]

    In: Proceed- ings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Guédon, A., Ichikawa, T., Yamashita, K., Nishino, K.: Matcha gaussians: Atlas of charts for high-quality geometry and photorealism from sparse views. In: Proceed- ings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 6001–6011 (2025)

    2025

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.04968 (2025)

    Guo, Z., Wang, P., Chen, Z., Kong, X., Lyu, Y., Gao, G., Han, L.: Ugod: Uncertainty-guided differentiable opacity and soft dropout for enhanced sparse- view 3dgs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.04968 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Neural computation9(1), 1–42 (1997)

    Hochreiter, S., Schmidhuber, J.: Flat minima. Neural computation9(1), 1–42 (1997)

    1997

  10. [10]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 110412–110435 (2024)

    Hyung, J., Hong, S., Hwang, S., Lee, J., Choo, J., Kim, J.H.: Effective rank anal- ysis and regularization for enhanced 3d gaussian splatting. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 110412–110435 (2024)

    2024

  11. [11]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)44(6), 1–16 (2025)

    Jiang, L., Mao, Y., Xu, L., Lu, T., Ren, K., Jin, Y., Xu, X., Yu, M., Pang, J., Zhao, F., et al.: Anysplat: Feed-forward 3d gaussian splatting from unconstrained views. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG)44(6), 1–16 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    ACM Trans

    Kerbl, B., Kopanas, G., Leimkühler, T., Drettakis, G., et al.: 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering. ACM Trans. Graph.42(4), 139–1 (2023)

    2023

  13. [13]

    On Large-Batch Training for Deep Learning: Generalization Gap and Sharp Minima

    Keskar, N.S., Mudigere, D., Nocedal, J., Smelyanskiy, M., Tang, P.T.P.: On large- batch training for deep learning: Generalization gap and sharp minima. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04836 (2016)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  14. [14]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 80965–80986 (2024) 16 K

    Kheradmand, S., Rebain, D., Sharma, G., Sun, W., Tseng, Y.C., Isack, H., Kar, A., Tagliasacchi, A., Yi, K.M.: 3d gaussian splatting as markov chain monte carlo. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 80965–80986 (2024) 16 K. Seo et al

    2024

  15. [15]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG)36(4), 1–13 (2017)

    Knapitsch, A., Park, J., Zhou, Q.Y., Koltun, V.: Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG)36(4), 1–13 (2017)

    2017

  16. [16]

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

    Li, J., Zhang, J., Bai, X., Zheng, J., Ning, X., Zhou, J., Gu, L.: Dngaussian: Opti- mizing sparse-view 3d gaussian radiance fields with global-local depth normaliza- tion. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 20775–20785 (2024)

    2024

  17. [17]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00357 (2024)

    Li, T., Tao, Q., Yan, W., Lei, Z., Wu, Y., Fang, K., He, M., Huang, X.: Revisiting random weight perturbation for efficiently improving generalization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00357 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11489 (2022)

    Li, T., Yan, W., Lei, Z., Wu, Y., Fang, K., Yang, M., Huang, X.: Efficient gen- eralization improvement guided by random weight perturbation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.11489 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG)38(4), 1–14 (2019)

    Mildenhall, B., Srinivasan, P.P., Ortiz-Cayon, R., Kalantari, N.K., Ramamoorthi, R., Ng, R., Kar, A.: Local light field fusion: Practical view synthesis with pre- scriptive sampling guidelines. ACM Transactions on Graphics (ToG)38(4), 1–14 (2019)

    2019

  20. [20]

    Commu- nications of the ACM65(1), 99–106 (2021)

    Mildenhall, B., Srinivasan, P.P., Tancik, M., Barron, J.T., Ramamoorthi, R., Ng, R.: Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. Commu- nications of the ACM65(1), 99–106 (2021)

    2021

  21. [21]

    In: Proceedings of the computer vision and pattern recog- nition conference

    Park, H., Ryu, G., Kim, W.: Dropgaussian: Structural regularization for sparse- view gaussian splatting. In: Proceedings of the computer vision and pattern recog- nition conference. pp. 21600–21609 (2025)

    2025

  22. [22]

    In: Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH Asia 2025 Conference Papers

    Patle, G., Girgaonkar, N., Somraj, N., Soundararajan, R.: Ad-gs: Alternating den- sification for sparse-input 3d gaussian splatting. In: Proceedings of the SIGGRAPH Asia 2025 Conference Papers. pp. 1–11 (2025)

    2025

  23. [23]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 97328–97352 (2024)

    Peng, R., Xu, W., Tang, L., Liao, L., Jiao, J., Wang, R.: Structure consistent gaussian splatting with matching prior for few-shot novel view synthesis. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems37, 97328–97352 (2024)

    2024

  24. [24]

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

    Schonberger, J.L., Frahm, J.M.: Structure-from-motion revisited. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 4104–4113 (2016)

    2016

  25. [25]

    D 2GS: Depth-and-density guided gaussian splatting for stable and accurate sparse-view reconstruction

    Song, M., Lin, X., Zhang, D., Li, H., Li, X., Du, B., Qi, L.: D2gs: Depth-and-density guided gaussian splatting for stable and accurate sparse-view reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.08566 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    IEEE transactions on image processing 13(4), 600–612 (2004)

    Wang, Z., Bovik, A.C., Sheikh, H.R., Simoncelli, E.P.: Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity. IEEE transactions on image processing 13(4), 600–612 (2004)

    2004

  27. [27]

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

    Wu, J.Z., Zhang, Y., Turki, H., Ren, X., Gao, J., Shou, M.Z., Fidler, S., Gojcic, Z., Ling, H.: Difix3d+: Improving 3d reconstructions with single-step diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 26024–26035 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Wu, J., Li, R., Zhu, Y., Guo, R., Sun, J., Zhang, Y.: Sparse2dgs: Geometry- prioritized gaussian splatting for surface reconstruction from sparse views. In: Pro- ceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 11307– 11316 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    In: 2025 Interna- tional Conference on 3D Vision (3DV)

    Xiong, H., Muttukuru, S., Xiao, H., Upadhyay, R., Chari, P., Zhao, Y., Kadambi, A.: Sparsegs: sparse view synthesis using 3d gaussian splatting. In: 2025 Interna- tional Conference on 3D Vision (3DV). pp. 1032–1041. IEEE (2025) Improving Sparse-View 3DGS Generalization via Flat Minima Optimization 17

    2025

  30. [30]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Xu, Y., Wang, L., Chen, M., Ao, S., Li, L., Guo, Y.: Dropoutgs: Dropping out gaussians for better sparse-view rendering. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 701–710 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    In: European conference on computer vision

    Zhang, J., Li, J., Yu, X., Huang, L., Gu, L., Zheng, J., Bai, X.: Cor-gs: sparse-view 3d gaussian splatting via co-regularization. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 335–352. Springer (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

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

    Zhang, R., Isola, P., Efros, A.A., Shechtman, E., Wang, O.: The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 586–595 (2018)

    2018

  33. [33]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

    Zhao, C., Wang, X., Zhang, T., Javed, S., Salzmann, M.: Self-ensembling gaussian splatting for few-shot novel view synthesis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 4940–4950 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference

    Zheng, Y., Jiang, Z., He, S., Sun, Y., Dong, J., Zhang, H., Du, Y.: Nexusgs: Sparse view synthesis with epipolar depth priors in 3d gaussian splatting. In: Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference. pp. 26800–26809 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    Zhong, Y., Li, Z., Chen, D.Z., Hong, L., Xu, D.: Taming video diffusion prior with scene-groundingguidancefor3dgaussiansplattingfromsparseinputs.In:Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 6133–6143 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    In: European conference on computer vision

    Zhu, Z., Fan, Z., Jiang, Y., Wang, Z.: Fsgs: Real-time few-shot view synthesis using gaussian splatting. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 145–

  37. [37]

    Seo et al

    Springer (2024) 18 K. Seo et al. A Appendix A.1 Additional Benchmark Results We evaluate our method on additional real-world outdoor, synthetic, and object- centric benchmarks, including NeO 360 dataset for outdoor settings with limited viewpoint coverage. T able 5:Additional benchmark results. Dataset Method PSNR SSIM LPIPS Tanks & Temples 12-view 3DGS13...

    2024