MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409261801 · doi:10.1109/wacv61041.2025.00346

GStex: Per-Primitive Texturing of 2D Gaussian Splatting for Decoupled Appearance and Geometry Modeling

2025· article· en· W4409261801 on OpenAlexaff
Victor Rong, J. Chen, Sherwin Bahmani, Kiriakos N. Kutulakos, David B. Lindell

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)GaussianGeometryComputational geometryArtificial intelligenceMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gaussian splatting has demonstrated excellent performance for view synthesis and scene reconstruction. The representation achieves photorealistic quality by optimizing the position, scale, color, and opacity of thousands to millions of 2D or 3D Gaussian primitives within a scene. However, since each Gaussian primitive encodes both appearance and geometry, these attributes are strongly coupled-thus, high-fidelity appearance modeling requires a large number of Gaussian primitives, even when the scene geometry is simple (e.g., for a textured planar surface). We propose to texture each 2D Gaussian primitive so that even a single Gaussian can be used to capture appearance details. By employing per-primitive texturing, our appearance representation is agnostic to the topology and complexity of the scene's geometry. We show that our approach, GStex, yields improved visual quality over prior work in texturing Gaussian splats. Furthermore, we demonstrate that our decoupling enables improved novel view synthesis performance compared to 2D Gaussian splatting when reducing the number of Gaussian primitives, and that GStex can be used for scene appearance editing and re-texturing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.278 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207