Initialize to Generalize: A Stronger Initialization Pipeline for Sparse-View 3DGS
Feng Zhou, Wenkai Guo, Pu Cao, Zhicheng Zhang, Jianqin Yin

TL;DR
This paper introduces a new initialization pipeline for sparse-view 3D Gaussian Splatting that significantly improves rendering quality by combining frequency-aware SfM, self-initialization, and point-cloud regularization.
Contribution
The authors propose a novel initialization method that enhances sparse-view 3DGS performance, surpassing prior approaches by focusing on improved seed points and regularization techniques.
Findings
Consistent performance gains on LLFF and Mip-NeRF360 datasets.
Improved coverage of low-texture regions via frequency-aware SfM.
Enhanced point cloud quality through geometric and visibility priors.
Abstract
Sparse-view 3D Gaussian Splatting (3DGS) often overfits to the training views, leading to artifacts like blurring in novel view rendering. Prior work addresses it either by enhancing the initialization (\emph{i.e.}, the point cloud from Structure-from-Motion (SfM)) or by adding training-time constraints (regularization) to the 3DGS optimization. Yet our controlled ablations reveal that initialization is the decisive factor: it determines the attainable performance band in sparse-view 3DGS, while training-time constraints yield only modest within-band improvements at extra cost. Given initialization's primacy, we focus our design there. Although SfM performs poorly under sparse views due to its reliance on feature matching, it still provides reliable seed points. Thus, building on SfM, our effort aims to supplement the regions it fails to cover as comprehensively as possible.…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2026 Conference Withdrawn Submission
1. Rigorous ablation studies show that initialization, not regularization, drives performance in sparse-view 3DGS, an important empirical finding for the community. 2. Achieves state-of-the-art results across multiple benchmarks with superior quantitative and qualitative performance. 3. Integrates seamlessly with existing methods (e.g., DropGS) to further boost performance.
1. Lack of failure analysis: The paper does not discuss potential failure cases where self-initialization or clustering may introduce artifacts or erode fine structural details. 2. Limited novelty: The contributions primarily combine empirical observations with incremental engineering refinements to enhance SfM-based initialization for 3DGS, rather than introducing a fundamentally new algorithmic concept. 3. Unassessed SfM accuracy: Increasing SfM density by reducing the track length from three
1. The paper emepirically find the bottleneck of 3DGS performce lies in the initialization. 2. The proposed method combined with DropGS outperform other methods in most metrics on Mip-NeRF360 and LLFF datasets.
1. The quantitative improvements brought by point cloud regularization are moderate based on Table 2. A qualitative figure would help understand the effectiveness of proposed method better. 2. The paper misses a reference SPARS3R [1], which also focuses on 3DGS initialization. [1]Tang, Y., Guo, Y., Li, D., & Peng, C. (2025). SPARS3R: Semantic Prior Alignment and Regularization for Sparse 3D Reconstruction. In Proceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference (pp. 26810-26821
1. The overall writting is clear. 2. The notivation to improve the initialization of 3DGS in the sparse situation is reasonable. 3. The artical structure is easy to understand.
1. Improving the initialization of 3DGS in bothe dense and sparse situation is not the new ideal, e.g., InstantSplat [1] adopts the DUSt3R to get denser and more accurate points, SCGaussian [2] and FewViewGS[3] adopt the feature matching model to get more accurate initialization points. 2. The novelty of the declared "low-frequency awere SFM" is questionable. The matching method SFM is existing classic method, and this strategy mybe more like a superoir configuration of SFM tool. 3. The comparis
* This work is well-written. The introduction of the point for "initialized point cloud" is good, as shown in Figure 1. * The experiments are well-conducted, which provide sufficient experimental results for the claims this work proposes. * The proposed frequency-aware SfM is interesting for me.
* This work mainly proposes an interesting engineering technique for initializing point clouds, but the rendering results shown in Figures 6 and 7 do not seem to have a significant gap in reconstruction quality compared to existing methods. * This work claims that all hyper-parameter settings are reported in the main text. But, I only saw the hyperparameter settings for iterations in "Implementation Details". More hyper-parameter settings should be reported. * More ablations of hyper-parameters
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
Topics3D Shape Modeling and Analysis · Advanced Vision and Imaging · Computer Graphics and Visualization Techniques
