Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

This paper claims that flattening the loss landscape helps sparse-view 3D Gaussian Splatting only in low-frequency regions, and proposes FASR, which adapts the sharpness penalty per Gaussian to keep detail while improving generalization.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 20:49 UTC pith:64ECNEQZ

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful optimization recipe for sparse-view 3DGS, wrapped in an unproven frequency-sharpness story; worth refereeing, but the conceptual claim needs to be dialed back or supported. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2511.17918 v2 pith:64ECNEQZ submitted 2025-11-22 cs.CV

Do Flat Minima Improve Sparse Novel View Synthesis?

Youngsik Yun , Dongjun Gu , Youngjung Uh This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords 3D Gaussian Splattingsparse-view novel view synthesisloss landscape sharpnesssharpness-aware minimizationfrequency-adaptive regularizationLaplacian of Gaussiangeneralization gapfew-shot rendering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper investigates why standard sharpness-aware minimization (SAM) fails to improve novel view synthesis from sparse views and finds that the optimal sharpness of the loss landscape varies with local image frequency. High-detail regions such as edges inherently require sharp minima for accurate reconstruction, while low-detail regions benefit from flat minima to avoid overfitting to the few training views. The authors propose Frequency-Adaptive Sharpness Regularization (FASR), which for each Gaussian reads a Laplacian-of-Gaussian optimal-scale map at its projected center and sets both the perturbation radius and the regularization weight inversely proportional to the local frequency. This training-only modification, without changing the 3D representation or adding external priors, consistently improves a range of 3D Gaussian Splatting baselines, and the paper also shows extensions to dynamic scenes and a NeRF model.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the loss landscape of a 3D Gaussian Splatting model is not uniformly flat or sharp: the curvature at a given Gaussian is strongly correlated with the local image frequency of the scene region it represents. High-frequency content, like edges and texture, forces sharp minima because small parameter perturbations produce large reconstruction errors; low-frequency regions, like smooth surfaces, have gradually varying loss. Therefore, any global sharpness-reduction scheme—such as applying SAM with a fixed perturbation radius and fixed regularization weight—will over-penalize high-frequency Gaussians (blurring detail) and under-penalize low-

What carries the argument

The central object is the Frequency-Adaptive Sharpness Regularization (FASR) objective, built on Weighted Sharpness-Aware Minimization (WSAM). For each Gaussian attribute (mean, rotation, scale, and others), FASR perturbs the parameter along the gradient direction with a radius scaled by a local frequency map value, then combines the gradient at the original point and the perturbed point using a frequency-adaptive weight. The frequency map is the key novelty: it is the optimal scale of a Laplacian-of-Gaussian (LoG) filter at each pixel, computed once per training view, and queried at each Gaussian's projected center, then adjusted by depth over focal length. This mechanism ties the optimizat

Load-bearing premise

The method's effectiveness rests on the assumption that the local image frequency measured at a Gaussian's projected location correctly predicts how much that Gaussian's loss landscape should be flattened, but the paper does not directly verify this link to the Hessian curvature.

What would settle it

A decisive test: compute each Gaussian's empirical sharpness (max Hessian eigenvalue) in a trained model and correlate it with the LoG scale value FASR uses; if the correlation is weak, the frequency map is not the operative signal. Alternatively, run FASR with the frequency map replaced by a constant but with the same per-Gaussian radii distribution; if the improvement disappears, the frequency-adaptivity specifically matters.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, any existing 3DGS-based sparse-view pipeline can be improved by adding FASR as a drop-in training objective, with no change to inference, representation, or external priors.
  • The finding refines the conventional deep-learning rule that flatter minima always generalize better: in reconstruction, the optimal sharpness depends on local signal frequency, so uniform flatness is the wrong target.
  • The same principle—frequency-dependent regularization—could transfer to other reconstruction tasks, such as depth estimation or image restoration, where preserving sharp detail while generalizing from sparse observations is important.
  • Applying FASR only in the final 12.5% of training iterations captures most of the gain at 1.15x training time, making the approach practical for large-scale or real-time training pipelines.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's core mechanism—using LoG optimal scale as a proxy for Hessian curvature—is plausible but not directly established; a direct comparison of per-Gaussian Hessian eigenvalues with the assigned radii would test this bridge.
  • The covisibility analysis suggests the method's benefit concentrates in under-constrained regions; a natural extension would be to weight the frequency map by covisibility to focus regularization where overfitting is worst.
  • The improvement on a NeRF baseline hints that the principle may apply to implicit representations through coarse-to-fine schedules, even though per-Gaussian frequency association is not directly available there.
  • One could go further and make the frequency map adaptive during training, updating it from rendered images rather than only the input views, which might handle scenes with large viewpoint-dependent texture.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper studies the relationship between loss-sharpness and generalization in sparse-view 3D Gaussian Splatting. It observes that vanilla sharpness-aware minimization (SAM) tends to oversmooth high-frequency detail, hypothesizes that the optimal sharpness varies with local image frequency, and proposes Frequency-Adaptive Sharpness Regularization (FASR). FASR modifies SAM in three ways: (i) estimating sharpness per Gaussian attribute, (ii) setting the perturbation radius inversely proportional to a LoG-based local-frequency scale queried at each Gaussian's projected center (Sec. 3.3.2, Eq. 5), and (iii) weighting the sharpness term with a frequency-adaptive coefficient (Sec. 3.3.3, Eq. 6). Experiments on LLFF and MipNeRF-360 across five 3DGS baselines show consistent AVGE improvements, supported by ablations, a covisibility analysis, and additional applications to dynamic 3D Gaussians and FreeNeRF.

Significance. If the mechanism is correct, FASR is an attractive training-only plug-in: it requires no architectural changes, no external priors, and improves a wide range of sparse-view 3DGS baselines. The paper's strengths are its extensive empirical evaluation (multiple runs, per-scene tables, covisibility breakdown), the per-attribute ablation isolating the contribution of Gaussian mean, and the demonstration of complementarity with existing methods. The late-phase training variant and the dynamic-scene extension also broaden applicability. However, the central frequency-to-sharpness mapping is asserted rather than derived or directly measured, so the distinctive contribution currently rests on indirect evidence; the paper would be materially stronger with a direct per-Gaussian sharpness validation or a proxy-randomization control.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.3.2 / Eq. (5)] The load-bearing premise is that the LoG optimal-scale map Γ_v, queried at a Gaussian's projected center and scaled by d_i/f, captures that Gaussian's loss-landscape curvature. No derivation or independent measurement ties LoG scale to per-attribute Hessian curvature; the support is indirect, through final metrics and the global loss-landscape visualization in Sec. 4.2.2, which reports only the maximum Hessian eigenvalue over all parameters. I ask for a direct test: compute per-Gaussian (or per-attribute) sharpness, e.g. finite-difference loss increase or Hessian-vector products, and correlate it with γ_i; or, as a control, replace γ_i with a shuffled/random frequency map while keeping the same per-attribute SAM schedule and show that the FASR gain disappears. Without such evidence, the adaptive mechanism could reduce to a hand-tuned per-attribute SAM schedule.
  2. [Sec. 3.3.2 / Eq. (5)] The frequency γ_i is queried from a single training view v at each iteration, but a Gaussian is rendered in many pixels and is visible across multiple views. The assigned frequency is therefore view-dependent and can vary across training iterations in a way that does not reflect the Gaussian's intrinsic local structure. This inconsistency is not discussed. At minimum, the paper should report sensitivity to the choice of view (e.g., randomly sampled vs. fixed) or aggregate Γ_v over all visible views. This is not a presentation nitpick: if the proxy is unstable, the per-Gaussian adaptation is not well-defined.
  3. [Sec. 3.3.3 / Eq. (6) and Appendix A] The ablation in Table 2 does not include a non-frequency-adaptive per-attribute SAM baseline with independently tuned per-attribute radii and weights. The claimed advantage of FASR over 'adaptive per-attribute SAM' is therefore not isolated. I recommend adding an ablation that uses the same per-attribute ρ_θ and the same per-attribute γ̄_i values but with γ_i replaced by a constant (or by a view-independent random map), so that any gain beyond a tuned per-attribute SAM schedule is attributable to the frequency adaptation. This is directly relevant to the paper's central claim that high-frequency regions inherently require sharp minima.
  4. [Sec. 4.3.1 and Appendix D] The late-phase variant Ours-L is motivated by Zhou et al. [67] for neural networks, but the paper reports that late application degrades performance (Table 4 and Fig. 10) and attributes this to densification. This explanation is plausible but not tested. Since the efficiency claim depends on this variant, please provide evidence that the degradation is indeed caused by densification, e.g., by disabling densification in a control experiment or by reporting the performance of Ours-L when applied after densification has converged. Without this, the efficiency claim is not fully supported.
minor comments (7)
  1. [References] References [3] and [4] are identical duplicates (same authors, title, venue, year). Please remove one and renumber.
  2. [Appendix B] Heading typo: 'arrtibute' should be 'attribute'.
  3. [Sec. 2.1] Typo: 'similary' should be 'similarly'.
  4. [Appendix G] Typo: 'Our method method outperforms' should be 'Our method outperforms'.
  5. [Sec. 3.3.2 / Sec. 3.3.3] The symbol γ_i is used both for the LoG scale value and, via γ̄_i, for the regularization weight. This overloading is confusing; consider using σ_i for the scale and γ_i only for the weight.
  6. [Figure 6] The sentence 'our method converges to less flat minima than SAM' is ambiguous. Please rephrase to clarify the comparison (e.g., 'our method's minimum is less flat than SAM's but flatter than 3DGS's').
  7. [Table 3] The covisibility deltas have overlapping standard deviations (e.g., -0.0066±.0043 vs. -0.0114±.0067 vs. -0.0142±.0074). A statistical test or a statement about significance would strengthen the claim that improvement increases with sparsity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; core claim rests on external benchmarks and public baselines, though the LoG-to-sharpness mapping is assumed rather than derived.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is the SAM reformulation into FASR: Eq. (1)-(3) restate SAM/WSAM from external literature, Eqs. (4)-(6) define per-Gaussian sharpness with frequency-adaptive radius and weight, and Sec. 3.3.2 maps a per-pixel LoG optimal scale map to a per-Gaussian perturbation. No equation in the paper defines the target result (generalization improvement) in terms of the method's own fitted parameters; the main claim is evaluated on public LLFF and MipNeRF-360 datasets against independent baselines, so the empirical contribution is self-contained and externally falsifiable. The scale map uses Lindeberg's LoG scale selection from the external literature; the heuristic 0.95 and grid-searched radii are fitted hyperparameters, not predictions derived from the inputs. The stated limitation that the LoG scale's link to Hessian curvature is unverified is a correctness/validation concern, not a circularity. Self-citations appear only in the dynamic-scene extension (Yun et al.) and are not load-bearing for the sparse-view claim. No step reduces by construction to a fitted input or to a self-citation chain; score 1 reflects only the heavy reliance on a heuristically assumed frequency-sharpness correlation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a borrowed PAC-Bayes bound (not rederived for 3DGS), an empirically-motivated frequency-to-sharpness mapping, and a set of grid-searched hyperparameters. No new physical entities are introduced; the LoG scale map is an algorithmic construct, not an independently evidenced entity.

free parameters (4)
  • per-attribute perturbation radii ρ_θ (mean, rotation, scale, opacity, SHDC, SHAC) = grid-searched per attribute on LLFF; values shown only as search ranges in Fig. 8, not stated numerically in text
    Appendix A: 'we first grid search the optimal perturbation magnitude by perturbing each parameter individually ... perform a grid search with simultaneous perturbation to determine the final hyperparameter.' These radii are fit to validation performance, not derived.
  • 0.95 coefficient in γbar_i = 0.95 γ_i / γ_max = 0.95
    Section 3.3.3 states '0.95 is determined empirically.' This directly sets the sharpness weighting schedule.
  • FASR application timing (last 12.5% of iterations) = 12.5% of total iterations
    Section 4.3.1 chooses late-phase application following Zhou et al. [67] to reduce cost; Fig. 10 shows full application is best, so the timing is a pragmatic fitted choice.
  • LoG scale-selection threshold and candidate scale set = not reported
    Appendix E selects the optimal scale as the first significant rise in the LoG response exceeding a threshold; neither the threshold value nor the candidate scale set is specified, leaving a hidden tuning knob that affects every Γ_v.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The SAM/WSAM PAC-Bayes generalization bound applies to 3DGS optimization, so reducing estimated sharpness is a valid way to improve novel-view generalization.
    Section 3.1-3.2 invokes Theorem 1 from Foret et al. and WSAM from Yue et al. without proving that 3DGS rendering, with its adaptive densification and non-smooth losses, satisfies the theorem's technical conditions.
  • ad hoc to paper The LoG optimal-scale map Γ_v is a valid proxy for the local loss-landscape curvature associated with each Gaussian.
    Sections 3.3.2-3.3.3 use Γ_v to set perturbation radii and regularization weights. No derivation or independent measurement connects LoG frequency to Hessian sharpness; it is motivated by intuition and validated only indirectly by final metrics.
  • domain assumption Per-attribute, per-Gaussian gradient-normalized perturbation gives a faithful estimate of the true SAM worst-case loss.
    Equation (4) perturbs each attribute θ_i independently using ∇_{θ_i} L. The text acknowledges in Sec. 3.2 that first-order Taylor approximation of sharpness can be inaccurate in high-frequency regions; the paper assumes this is sufficiently mitigated by frequency-adaptive radii.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17195 in / 12334 out tokens · 126883 ms · 2026-08-03T20:49:31.687127+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Despite the success of recent novel view synthesis methods, they tend to struggle in sparse-view settings. This poor generalization to unseen viewpoints is an inherent challenge when training with limited data. To address this, we investigate the relationship between loss sharpness and generalization in novel view synthesis-an underexplored direction. Interestingly, while pursuing flatter minima is widely known to improve generalization in deep learning, reducing loss sharpness is not always beneficial in novel view synthesis. We demonstrate that this difference arises because high-detail regions inherently require a sharp loss landscape for accurate reconstruction, whereas low-detail regions benefit from a flat loss landscape for improving generalization. Based on this insight, we introduce structure-aware sharpness, defined within structure-adaptive neighborhoods, and propose to adaptively adjust the sharpness regularization weight according to the local image structure. This strategy encourages flatter minima for generalization while preserving the loss sharpness necessary to reconstruct fine details. Across various datasets and configurations, our strategy consistently improves a wide range of baselines. Code is available at https://bbangsik13.github.io/FASR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.17918 by Dongjun Gu, Youngjung Uh, Youngsik Yun.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview. Our proposed optimization algorithm im￾proves generalization. Given eight training views rendered from the lego scene in Blender synthetic dataset [41], our method maintains low Average Error [44] across interpolated novel views, whereas 3DGS exhibits overfitting. Plots are means and standard deviations over ten runs. generalization, previous approaches have adopted various strategies, such as in… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Conceptual 1D Loss Landscape of Flat and Sharp Minima3 . Flat minimum better generalize then sharp minimum. models to overfit training views, resulting in insufficient generalization in unseen views. Early efforts sought to ex￾tend neural radiance fields (NeRFs) [41] by incorporating additional regularizations or auxiliary cues. For example, these studies [9, 44, 54, 60] introduce geometry- or depth￾based … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Overview of our proposed method. Key hypothesis. Based on this intuition, we hypothesize that for each Gaussian, the optimal neighborhood radius ρθ and regularization weight γ vary in correlation with image frequency, which effectively tightens the WSAM-extended version of the generalization bound in Theorem 1. 3.3. Frequency-Adaptive Sharpness Regularization To address the limitation of SAM, we introduce … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison. Please zoom on the insets in red boxes to compare reconstruction quality. 4.2. Analysis 4.2.1. Ablation study Directly applying SAM [12] to 3DGS leads to degraded per￾formance. This naive approach strongly perturbs Gaussians with large gradients, resulting in blurry reconstructions ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation study. FAP and FAS denote frequency-adaptive perturbation magnitude and frequency-adaptive sharpness weighting, respectively. “3DGS”, “SAM”, and “w/o FAS & FAP” produce inaccurate geometry (red box). All except “Ours Full” show blurry results (yellow box) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Loss landscape visualization. We compare the conver￾gence behaviors of 3DGS, SAM, and Ours. Because the visualiza￾tion produces a smoothed loss landscape, we provide a zoomed-in view near the convergence points. We measure sharpness as the maximum eigenvalue λmax of the Hessian matrix [38, 57] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Qualitative comparison with FreeNeRF. Please zoom on the insets in red boxes to compare reconstruction quality [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Hyperparameter grid search, where each parameter is perturbed individually on the LLFF dataset. Plots are means and standard deviations over ten runs. We mark a star at the best hyperparameter value. A. Hyperparameter search Selecting the optimal neighborhood of radius ρ, i.e., the perturbation magnitude, remains a challenging problem in SAM-based methods. Although our method scales ρ for each Gaussian con… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Qualitative comparison of random perturbation and our method. Random perturbation often introduce unexpected artifacts. Method LLFF (3 views) PSNR ↑ SSIM ↑ LPIPS ↓ 3DGS 19.810 ± .339 .6790 ± .0078 .2145 ± .0065 w/ RP 20.174 ± .207 .6987 ± .0040 .2009 ± .0032 w/o AP 20.263 ± .289 .6990 ± .0031 .2056 ± .0027 3DGS + Ours 20.783 ± .300 .7197 ± .0032 .1965 ± .0034 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Mind the Gap: Standard 3DGS Evaluation Primarily Measures Near-Trajectory Interpolation

    cs.CV 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Standard every-Nth-frame holdouts in 3D scene reconstruction primarily measure near-trajectory interpolation, with a consistent 3-12 dB gap to matched-count contiguous spatial holdouts that persists across Gaussian, n...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Mod- eling uncertainty for gaussian splatting.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 36(6):11657– 11663, 2025

    Luca Savant Aira, Diego Valsesia, and Enrico Magli. Mod- eling uncertainty for gaussian splatting.IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, 36(6):11657– 11663, 2025. 3

    2025

  2. [2]

    Towards understanding sharpness-aware minimization

    Maksym Andriushchenko and Nicolas Flammarion. Towards understanding sharpness-aware minimization. InProceed- ings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learn- ing, pages 639–668. PMLR, 2022. 2

    2022

  3. [4]

    A modern look at the relationship between sharpness and generaliza- tion

    Maksym Andriushchenko, Francesco Croce, Maximilian M¨uller, Matthias Hein, and Nicolas Flammarion. A modern look at the relationship between sharpness and generaliza- tion. InProceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 840–902. PMLR, 2023. 3

    2023

  4. [5]

    Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P

    Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P. Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5470–5479, 2022. 5

    2022

  5. [6]

    Zoedepth: Zero-shot transfer by com- bining relative and metric depth, 2023

    Shariq Farooq Bhat, Reiner Birkl, Diana Wofk, Peter Wonka, and Matthias M ¨uller. Zoedepth: Zero-shot transfer by com- bining relative and metric depth, 2023. 2

    2023

  6. [7]

    Swad: Domain generalization by seeking flat minima

    Junbum Cha, Sanghyuk Chun, Kyungjae Lee, Han-Cheol Cho, Seunghyun Park, Yunsung Lee, and Sungrae Park. Swad: Domain generalization by seeking flat minima. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 22405–22418. Curran Associates, Inc., 2021. 2

    2021

  7. [8]

    Eap-gs: Efficient augmenta- tion of pointcloud for 3d gaussian splatting in few-shot scene reconstruction

    Dongrui Dai and Yuxiang Xing. Eap-gs: Efficient augmenta- tion of pointcloud for 3d gaussian splatting in few-shot scene reconstruction. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 16498–16507, 2025. 1, 2

    2025

  8. [9]

    Depth-supervised nerf: Fewer views and faster train- ing for free

    Kangle Deng, Andrew Liu, Jun-Yan Zhu, and Deva Ra- manan. Depth-supervised nerf: Fewer views and faster train- ing for free. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12882–12891, 2022. 2

    2022

  9. [10]

    Sharp minima can generalize for deep nets

    Laurent Dinh, Razvan Pascanu, Samy Bengio, and Yoshua Bengio. Sharp minima can generalize for deep nets. InPro- ceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 1019–1028. PMLR, 2017. 3

    2017

  10. [11]

    Gintare Karolina Dziugaite and Daniel M. Roy. Comput- ing nonvacuous generalization bounds for deep (stochastic) neural networks with many more parameters than training data. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference on Un- certainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI), 2017. 3

    2017

  11. [12]

    Sharpness-aware minimization for efficiently improving generalization

    Pierre Foret, Ariel Kleiner, Hossein Mobahi, and Behnam Neyshabur. Sharpness-aware minimization for efficiently improving generalization. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. 2, 3, 4, 6, 8

    2021

  12. [13]

    Hicom: Hierarchical coherent motion for dy- namic streamable scenes with 3d gaussian splatting

    Qiankun Gao, Jiarui Meng, Chengxiang Wen, Jie Chen, and Jian Zhang. Hicom: Hierarchical coherent motion for dy- namic streamable scenes with 3d gaussian splatting. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 80609–80633. Curran Associates, Inc., 2024. 3

    2024

  13. [14]

    Queen: Quan- tized efficient encoding of dynamic gaussians for streaming free-viewpoint videos

    Sharath Girish, Tianye Li, Amrita Mazumdar, Abhinav Shri- vastava, David Luebke, and Shalini De Mello. Queen: Quan- tized efficient encoding of dynamic gaussians for streaming free-viewpoint videos. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 43435–43467. Curran Associates, Inc., 2024. 8

    2024

  14. [15]

    Bayes’ rays: Uncertainty quan- tification for neural radiance fields

    Lily Goli, Cody Reading, Silvia Sell ´an, Alec Jacobson, and Andrea Tagliasacchi. Bayes’ rays: Uncertainty quan- tification for neural radiance fields. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 20061–20070, 2024. 3

    2024

  15. [16]

    InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 38888– 38959

    Moritz Haas, Jin Xu, V olkan Cevher, and Leena Chen- nuru Vankadara.µp2: Effective sharpness aware minimiza- tion requires layerwise perturbation scaling. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 38888– 38959. Curran Associates, Inc., 2024. 3

    2024

  16. [17]

    4dgc: Rate-aware 4d gaussian compression for efficient streamable free-viewpoint video

    Qiang Hu, Zihan Zheng, Houqiang Zhong, Sihua Fu, Li Song, Xiaoyun Zhang, Guangtao Zhai, and Yanfeng Wang. 4dgc: Rate-aware 4d gaussian compression for efficient streamable free-viewpoint video. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 875–885, 2025. 8

    2025

  17. [18]

    Averaging weights leads to wider optima and better generalization

    Pavel Izmailov, Dmitrii Podoprikhin, Timur Garipov, Dmitry Vetrov, and Andrew Gordon Wilson. Averaging weights leads to wider optima and better generalization. InProceed- ings of the 34th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artifi- cial Intelligence (UAI), 2018. 2

    2018

  18. [19]

    A reparametrization-invariant sharpness measure based on information geometry.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:27893–27905, 2022

    Cheongjae Jang, Sungyoon Lee, Frank Park, and Yung-Kyun Noh. A reparametrization-invariant sharpness measure based on information geometry.Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:27893–27905, 2022. 3

    2022

  19. [20]

    Comapgs: Covisibility map-based gaussian splatting for sparse novel view synthesis

    Youngkyoon Jang and Eduardo P ´erez-Pellitero. Comapgs: Covisibility map-based gaussian splatting for sparse novel view synthesis. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference (CVPR), pages 26779– 26788, 2025. 1, 2, 7

    2025

  20. [21]

    Sparfels: Fast reconstruction from sparse unposed imagery

    Shubhendu Jena, Amine Ouasfi, Mae Younes, and Adnane Boukhayma. Sparfels: Fast reconstruction from sparse unposed imagery. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 27476–27487, 2025. 2

    2025

  21. [22]

    Fantastic generalization mea- sures and where to find them

    Yiding Jiang, Behnam Neyshabur, Hossein Mobahi, Dilip Krishnan, and Samy Bengio. Fantastic generalization mea- sures and where to find them. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2020. 2

    2020

  22. [23]

    3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.ACM Trans

    Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkuehler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering.ACM Trans. Graph., 42(4), 2023. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8

    2023

  23. [24]

    On large- batch training for deep learning: Generalization gap and sharp minima

    Nitish Shirish Keskar, Dheevatsa Mudigere, Jorge Nocedal, Mikhail Smelyanskiy, and Ping Tak Peter Tang. On large- batch training for deep learning: Generalization gap and sharp minima. InInternational Conference on Learning Rep- resentations, 2017. 2

    2017

  24. [25]

    3d gaussian splat- ting as markov chain monte carlo

    Shakiba Kheradmand, Daniel Rebain, Gopal Sharma, Wei- wei Sun, Yang-Che Tseng, Hossam Isack, Abhishek Kar, Andrea Tagliasacchi, and Kwang Moo Yi. 3d gaussian splat- ting as markov chain monte carlo. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 80965–80986. Cur- ran Associates, Inc., 2024. 3

    2024

  25. [26]

    Fisher SAM: Information geometry and sharp- ness aware minimisation

    Minyoung Kim, Da Li, Shell X Hu, and Timothy Hospedales. Fisher SAM: Information geometry and sharp- ness aware minimisation. InProceedings of the 39th In- ternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 11148– 11161. PMLR, 2022. 3

    2022

  26. [27]

    Kingma and Jimmy Ba

    Diederik P. Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2015. 4

    2015

  27. [28]

    Asam: Adaptive sharpness-aware minimiza- tion for scale-invariant learning of deep neural networks

    Jungmin Kwon, Jeongseop Kim, Hyunseo Park, and In Kwon Choi. Asam: Adaptive sharpness-aware minimiza- tion for scale-invariant learning of deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Ma- chine Learning, pages 5905–5914. PMLR, 2021. 3

    2021

  28. [29]

    Bayesian nerf: Quantifying uncertainty with volume density for neural implicit fields.IEEE Robotics and Au- tomation Letters, 10(3):2144–2151, 2025

    Sibaek Lee, Kyeongsu Kang, Seongbo Ha, and Hyeonwoo Yu. Bayesian nerf: Quantifying uncertainty with volume density for neural implicit fields.IEEE Robotics and Au- tomation Letters, 10(3):2144–2151, 2025. 3

    2025

  29. [30]

    Ground- ing image matching in 3d with mast3r

    Vincent Leroy, Yohann Cabon, and Jerome Revaud. Ground- ing image matching in 3d with mast3r. InComputer Vision – ECCV 2024, pages 71–91, Cham, 2025. Springer Nature Switzerland. 2, 7

    2024

  30. [31]

    Dngaussian: Optimizing sparse-view 3d gaussian radiance fields with global-local depth normaliza- tion

    Jiahe Li, Jiawei Zhang, Xiao Bai, Jin Zheng, Xin Ning, Jun Zhou, and Lin Gu. Dngaussian: Optimizing sparse-view 3d gaussian radiance fields with global-local depth normaliza- tion. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 20775– 20785, 2024. 2

    2024

  31. [32]

    Streaming radiance fields for 3d video synthesis

    Lingzhi LI, Zhen Shen, Zhongshu Wang, Li Shen, and Ping Tan. Streaming radiance fields for 3d video synthesis. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 13485–13498. Curran Associates, Inc., 2022. 8

    2022

  32. [33]

    Neural 3d video synthesis from multi-view video

    Tianye Li, Mira Slavcheva, Michael Zollh¨ofer, Simon Green, Christoph Lassner, Changil Kim, Tanner Schmidt, Steven Lovegrove, Michael Goesele, Richard Newcombe, and Zhaoyang Lv. Neural 3d video synthesis from multi-view video. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5521– 5531, 2022. 8

    2022

  33. [34]

    Friendly sharpness-aware minimization

    Tao Li, Pan Zhou, Zhengbao He, Xinwen Cheng, and Xiaolin Huang. Friendly sharpness-aware minimization. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5631–5640, 2024. 2

    2024

  34. [35]

    Scale selection properties of generalized scale-space interest point detectors.Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 46(2):177–210, 2013

    Tony Lindeberg. Scale selection properties of generalized scale-space interest point detectors.Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 46(2):177–210, 2013. 13

    2013

  35. [36]

    Stochastic preconditioning for neural field optimization.ACM Trans

    Selena Ling, Merlin Nimier-David, Alec Jacobson, and Nicholas Sharp. Stochastic preconditioning for neural field optimization.ACM Trans. Graph., 44(4), 2025. 3, 8

    2025

  36. [37]

    Balanced sharpness-aware minimization for imbalanced regression

    Yahao Liu, Qin Wang, Lixin Duan, and Wen Li. Balanced sharpness-aware minimization for imbalanced regression. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 6242–6251, 2025. 2

    2025

  37. [38]

    Explicit eigenvalue regularization improves sharpness-aware minimization

    Haocheng Luo, Tuan Truong, Tung Pham, Mehrtash Ha- randi, Dinh Phung, and Trung Le. Explicit eigenvalue regularization improves sharpness-aware minimization. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024. 7

    2024

  38. [39]

    McAllester

    David A. McAllester. Some pac-bayesian theorems. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Conference on Com- putational Learning Theory, page 230–234, New York, NY , USA, 1998. Association for Computing Machinery. 3

    1998

  39. [40]

    Srinivasan, Rodrigo Ortiz-Cayon, Nima Khademi Kalantari, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Ren Ng, and Abhishek Kar

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Rodrigo Ortiz-Cayon, Nima Khademi Kalantari, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Ren Ng, and Abhishek Kar. Local light field fusion: practical view syn- thesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines.ACM Trans. Graph., 38(4), 2019. 5

    2019

  40. [41]

    Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T

    Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T. Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis. InComputer Vision – ECCV 2020, pages 405–421, Cham, 2020. Springer International Publishing. 1, 2, 8

    2020

  41. [42]

    Normalization layers are all that sharpness- aware minimization needs

    Maximilian Mueller, Tiffany Vlaar, David Rolnick, and Matthias Hein. Normalization layers are all that sharpness- aware minimization needs. InAdvances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, pages 69228–69252. Curran Asso- ciates, Inc., 2023. 2

    2023

  42. [43]

    Nesterov

    Y . Nesterov. A method for solving the convex programming problem with convergence rate o(1/k2), 1983. 3

    1983

  43. [44]

    Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Mehdi S

    Michael Niemeyer, Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Mehdi S. M. Sajjadi, Andreas Geiger, and Noha Radwan. Regnerf: Regularizing neural radiance fields for view syn- thesis from sparse inputs. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 5480–5490, 2022. 1, 2, 5

    2022

  44. [45]

    Dropgaus- sian: Structural regularization for sparse-view gaussian splatting

    Hyunwoo Park, Gun Ryu, and Wonjun Kim. Dropgaus- sian: Structural regularization for sparse-view gaussian splatting. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 21600–21609, 2025. 2, 5

    2025

  45. [46]

    Vi- sion transformers for dense prediction

    Ren ´e Ranftl, Alexey Bochkovskiy, and Vladlen Koltun. Vi- sion transformers for dense prediction. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 12179–12188, 2021. 2

    2021

  46. [47]

    Williamson

    John Shawe-Taylor and Robert C. Williamson. A pac analy- sis of a bayesian estimator. InProceedings of the Tenth An- nual Conference on Computational Learning Theory, page 2–9, New York, NY , USA, 1997. Association for Computing Machinery. 3

    1997

  47. [48]

    Stochastic neural radiance fields: Quanti- fying uncertainty in implicit 3d representations

    Jianxiong Shen, Adria Ruiz, Antonio Agudo, and Francesc Moreno-Noguer. Stochastic neural radiance fields: Quanti- fying uncertainty in implicit 3d representations. In2021 In- ternational Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 972–981,

  48. [49]

    Flowformer++: Masked cost volume autoen- coding for pretraining optical flow estimation

    Xiaoyu Shi, Zhaoyang Huang, Dasong Li, Manyuan Zhang, Ka Chun Cheung, Simon See, Hongwei Qin, Jifeng Dai, and Hongsheng Li. Flowformer++: Masked cost volume autoen- coding for pretraining optical flow estimation. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 1599–1610, 2023. 2, 13

    2023

  49. [50]

    Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recognition

    Karen Simonyan and Andrew Zisserman. Very deep convo- lutional networks for large-scale image recognition. InIn- ternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2015. 5

    2015

  50. [51]

    Adasam: Boosting sharpness-aware minimization with adaptive learning rate and momentum for training deep neu- ral networks.Neural Networks, 169:506–519, 2024

    Hao Sun, Li Shen, Qihuang Zhong, Liang Ding, Shixiang Chen, Jingwei Sun, Jing Li, Guangzhong Sun, and Dacheng Tao. Adasam: Boosting sharpness-aware minimization with adaptive learning rate and momentum for training deep neu- ral networks.Neural Networks, 169:506–519, 2024. 2

    2024

  51. [52]

    3dgstream: On-the-fly training of 3d gaussians for efficient streaming of photo-realistic free- viewpoint videos

    Jiakai Sun, Han Jiao, Guangyuan Li, Zhanjie Zhang, Lei Zhao, and Wei Xing. 3dgstream: On-the-fly training of 3d gaussians for efficient streaming of photo-realistic free- viewpoint videos. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 20675–20685, 2024. 8

    2024

  52. [53]

    Nor- malized flat minima: Exploring scale invariant definition of flat minima for neural networks using pac-bayesian analy- sis

    Yusuke Tsuzuku, Issei Sato, and Masashi Sugiyama. Nor- malized flat minima: Exploring scale invariant definition of flat minima for neural networks using pac-bayesian analy- sis. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 9636–9647. PMLR, 2020. 3

    2020

  53. [54]

    Sparsenerf: Distilling depth ranking for few-shot novel view synthesis

    Guangcong Wang, Zhaoxi Chen, Chen Change Loy, and Zi- wei Liu. Sparsenerf: Distilling depth ranking for few-shot novel view synthesis. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF In- ternational Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 9065–9076, 2023. 2

    2023

  54. [55]

    Bovik, H.R

    Zhou Wang, A.C. Bovik, H.R. Sheikh, and E.P. Simoncelli. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13(4): 600–612, 2004. 5

    2004

  55. [56]

    Sharpness min- imization algorithms do not only minimize sharpness to achieve better generalization.Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 36:1024–1035, 2023

    Kaiyue Wen, Zhiyuan Li, and Tengyu Ma. Sharpness min- imization algorithms do not only minimize sharpness to achieve better generalization.Advances in Neural Informa- tion Processing Systems, 36:1024–1035, 2023. 3

    2023

  56. [57]

    How sharpness- aware minimization minimizes sharpness? InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2023

    Kaiyue Wen, Tengyu Ma, and Zhiyuan Li. How sharpness- aware minimization minimizes sharpness? InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2023. 7

    2023

  57. [58]

    Dropoutgs: Dropping out gaussians for better sparse-view rendering

    Yexing Xu, Longguang Wang, Minglin Chen, Sheng Ao, Li Li, and Yulan Guo. Dropoutgs: Dropping out gaussians for better sparse-view rendering. InProceedings of the Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference (CVPR), pages 701–710, 2025. 2

    2025

  58. [59]

    Instant gaussian stream: Fast and generalizable streaming of dy- namic scene reconstruction via gaussian splatting

    Jinbo Yan, Rui Peng, Zhiyan Wang, Luyang Tang, Jiayu Yang, Jie Liang, Jiahao Wu, and Ronggang Wang. Instant gaussian stream: Fast and generalizable streaming of dy- namic scene reconstruction via gaussian splatting. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 16520–16531, 2025. 8

    2025

  59. [60]

    Freenerf: Im- proving few-shot neural rendering with free frequency reg- ularization

    Jiawei Yang, Marco Pavone, and Yue Wang. Freenerf: Im- proving few-shot neural rendering with free frequency reg- ularization. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 8254–8263, 2023. 2, 8

    2023

  60. [61]

    Sharpness-aware minimization revisited: Weighted sharpness as a regularization term

    Yun Yue, Jiadi Jiang, Zhiling Ye, Ning Gao, Yongchao Liu, and Ke Zhang. Sharpness-aware minimization revisited: Weighted sharpness as a regularization term. InProceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Dis- covery and Data Mining, page 3185–3194, New York, NY , USA, 2023. Association for Computing Machinery. 3, 4

    2023

  61. [62]

    Compensat- ing spatiotemporally inconsistent observations for online dy- namic 3d gaussian splatting

    Youngsik Yun, Jeongmin Bae, Hyunseung Son, Seoha Kim, Hahyun Lee, Gun Bang, and Youngjung Uh. Compensat- ing spatiotemporally inconsistent observations for online dy- namic 3d gaussian splatting. InProceedings of the Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Tech- niques Conference Conference Papers, New York, NY , USA,

  62. [63]

    Cor-gs: Sparse-view 3d gaussian splat- ting via co-regularization

    Jiawei Zhang, Jiahe Li, Xiaohan Yu, Lei Huang, Lin Gu, Jin Zheng, and Xiao Bai. Cor-gs: Sparse-view 3d gaussian splat- ting via co-regularization. InComputer Vision – ECCV 2024, pages 335–352, Cham, 2025. Springer Nature Switzerland. 2, 5

    2024

  63. [64]

    Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang

    Richard Zhang, Phillip Isola, Alexei A. Efros, Eli Shecht- man, and Oliver Wang. The unreasonable effectiveness of deep features as a perceptual metric. InProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), 2018. 5

    2018

  64. [65]

    Self-ensembling gaussian splatting for few-shot novel view synthesis

    Chen Zhao, Xuan Wang, Tong Zhang, Saqib Javed, and Mathieu Salzmann. Self-ensembling gaussian splatting for few-shot novel view synthesis. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 4940–4950, 2025. 2, 5

    2025

  65. [66]

    Nexusgs: Sparse view synthesis with epipolar depth priors in 3d gaus- sian splatting

    Yulong Zheng, Zicheng Jiang, Shengfeng He, Yandu Sun, Junyu Dong, Huaidong Zhang, and Yong Du. Nexusgs: Sparse view synthesis with epipolar depth priors in 3d gaus- sian splatting. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference (CVPR), pages 26800– 26809, 2025. 1, 2, 5

    2025

  66. [67]

    Sharpness-aware minimization efficiently selects flatter minima late in training

    Zhanpeng Zhou, Mingze Wang, Yuchen Mao, Bingrui Li, and Junchi Yan. Sharpness-aware minimization efficiently selects flatter minima late in training. InThe Thirteenth In- ternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2025. 7, 8, 13

    2025

  67. [68]

    Fsgs: Real-time few-shot view synthesis using gaussian splatting

    Zehao Zhu, Zhiwen Fan, Yifan Jiang, and Zhangyang Wang. Fsgs: Real-time few-shot view synthesis using gaussian splatting. InComputer Vision – ECCV 2024, pages 145–163, Cham, 2025. Springer Nature Switzerland. 2, 5 2e-2 5e-2 1e-1 2e-1 5e-1 1e0 Perturbation magnitude 0.10 0.12 0.14A VGE mean Mean ± Std Best 1e-4 2e-4 5e-4 1e-3 2e-3 5e-3 Perturbation magnitu...

    arXiv 2024

  68. [2025]

    Association for Computing Machinery. 8, 13