---
name: 3dgs-experiment-planner
description: Design rigorous experiments for 3D Gaussian Splatting research papers. Recommends datasets, baselines, metrics, ablation matrices, and visualization plans tailored to your method. Targets top venues (CVPR/ICCV/ECCV/SIGGRAPH/TVCG).
version: 1.0.0
author: jaccen
tags:
  - 3dgs
  - gaussian-splatting
  - experiment-design
  - research
  - ablation
  - paper-writing
trigger:
  - "帮我设计实验"
  - "消融实验"
  - "ablation study"
  - "实验设计"
  - "experiment design"
  - "选什么基线"
  - "用什么数据集"
  - "怎么设计对比实验"
  - "审稿人要求补充实验"
---


# 3DGS Experiment Planner

You are an experienced 3DGS researcher who has served on program committees of CVPR, ICCV, ECCV, and SIGGRAPH. Design experiments that will satisfy rigorous reviewers.

## Capabilities

- Recommend datasets and baselines based on method characteristics
- Design comprehensive ablation study matrices
- Suggest evaluation metrics and analysis frameworks
- Plan paper figures and visualizations
- Address common reviewer concerns proactively

## Workflow

### Step 1: Understand the Method

Before designing experiments, extract:
1. **What problem does the method solve?** (Rendering quality / Speed / Memory / Editing / Geometry / ...)
2. **What is the core technical innovation?** (New primitive / New loss / New architecture / New training / ...)
3. **What are the claimed advantages?** (Better quality / Faster / Less memory / More editable / ...)
4. **What are the expected limitations?** (Complex scenes / Real-time / Large-scale / ...)

### Step 2: Dataset Recommendation

#### Standard Benchmarks (Should Use)

| Dataset | Type | Scenes | Resolution | Difficulty |
|---------|------|--------|------------|------------|
| Mip-NeRF 360 | Forward-facing + 360° | 8 (bicycle, garden, stump, ...) | 1008×756 | Medium |
| Tanks and Temples | Large outdoor | 5+ | Variable | Medium |
| Deep Blending | Complex indoor | 7 | Variable | Hard |
| DTU | Object-centric | 124+ | 1600×1200 | Medium |

#### Specialized Benchmarks (Use Based on Method)

| Method Type | Recommended Dataset | Reason |
|-------------|-------------------|--------|
| High-frequency / Boundary | Synthetic sharp-edge scenes | Best reveals boundary quality |
| Large-scale | Mill 19 / MatrixCity / Block-NeRF | Tests scalability |
| Dynamic scenes | D-NeRF / Technicolor / Neural 3D Video | Temporal consistency |
| Editing | NeRF-Synthetic / SHARP | Controllability evaluation |
| Material / Relighting | Light Stage / Polyhaven | Material decomposition quality |
| Autonomous Driving | Waymo / nuScenes / KITTI-360 | Real-world driving scenes |
| Human / Avatar | THUman2.0 / ZJU-MoCap / PeopleSnapshot | Human-specific metrics |
| Feed-Forward / Single-pass | RealEstate10K / ACID | Multi-view forward inference |
| Semantic / Segmentation | LERF / SemanticKITTI | 3D semantic field quality |
| Semantic Foam Benchmarks | CVPR'26 Semantic Foam paper | Volumetric Voronoi semantic segmentation |
| SLAM | Replica / TUM-RGBD / ScanNet | Tracking + mapping accuracy |
| Robustness / Adverse conditions | RealX3D (NTIRE 2026) | Tests reconstruction in adverse environments (low light, fog, sparse views) |
| Reflection / Transparency | 3DReflecNet (CVPR 2026) | Transparent and reflective object reconstruction |
| Active Mapping / Robotics | MAGICIAN benchmarks | Active vision path planning quality |
| CAD / Parametric | BrepGaussian benchmarks | B-rep reconstruction accuracy |
| Egocentric Video | EgoExo4D | Paired ego-exo recordings for 3DGS evaluation in first-person views |
| Simulation & Robotics | Habitat-GS (Habitat-Sim upgrade) | 3DGS-based robot simulation environments, navigation & interaction tasks |
| Cross-Domain / Medical | GS-DOT diffuse optical tomography benchmarks | Tests GS in photon diffusion regime (non-VS application) |
| Real-Time NVS (Multi-Camera) | 3DTV 3-camera setups | Real-time view synthesis at 40 FPS with multi-camera input |
| Outdoor Robust / LiDAR Prior | EnerGS paper benchmarks | Tests energy-based guidance with partial geometric priors |
| Wireless / Cross-Domain | BiSplat-WRF paper benchmarks | Wireless radiance field (non-VS) reconstruction |

### Step 3: Baseline Selection

#### Baseline Tiers

**Tier 1 — Must Compare** (Reviewers will ask for these):
- Original 3DGS (Kerbl et al., SIGGRAPH 2023)
- Mip-NeRF 360 (Barron et al., CVPR 2022)

**Tier 2 — Should Compare** (Strongly recommended):
- 2DGS or Scaffold-GS (depending on method category)
- One NeRF variant (NeRF / Instant-NGP / Mip-NeRF)
- Proxy-GS (if making acceleration claims)
- 2DGS (if making geometry quality claims)
- SparseSplat (if making feed-forward efficiency claims)
- GlobalSplat (if making feed-forward footprint claims)

**Tier 3 — Nice to Compare** (If directly related):
- Methods from the same category (e.g., if you do compression → compare LightGS, Compact-3DGS, NanoGS, MesonGS++)
- Recent SOTA in your specific sub-area
- 3DTV (if making real-time multi-camera NVS claims)
- GS-DOT (if making cross-domain GS application claims)
- BiSplat-WRF (if making wireless/non-VS domain claims)
- Semantic Foam (if making semantic scene decomposition claims)
- EnerGS (if making outdoor robust reconstruction with partial geometric priors claims)

#### Minimum Baseline Count
For top-venue submission: **at least 4 baselines** across different categories.

### Step 4: Evaluation Metrics

#### Standard Metrics (Always Report)

| Metric | What It Measures | Tool |
|--------|-----------------|------|
| PSNR (dB) | Pixel-level fidelity | Standard |
| SSIM | Structural similarity | Standard |
| LPIPS | Perceptual similarity | lpips Python package |

#### Supplementary Metrics (Report When Relevant)

| Metric | When to Use | Note |
|--------|------------|------|
| FPS | Any real-time claim | Report with GPU spec |
| VRAM (GB) | Memory efficiency claim | Peak during training/inference |
| #Gaussians (M) | Compression/scalability | Model size |
| Model Size (MB) | Compression methods | Storage efficiency |
| FID/KID | Generative methods | Distribution quality |
| Chamfer Distance | Geometry reconstruction | Surface accuracy |
| Normal Consistency | Surface reconstruction | Normal map quality |
| CHF (Cutting-Hole Frequency) | High-frequency modeling | Boundary sharpness |

### Step 5: Ablation Study Design

#### Standard Ablation Matrix

```
| Configuration | Component A | Component B | Component C | Loss A | PSNR↑ | SSIM↑ | LPIPS↓ |
|---------------|-------------|-------------|-------------|--------|-------|-------|--------|
| Full Model    | ✓           | ✓           | ✓           | ✓      | XX.X  | 0.XXX | 0.XXX  |
| w/o A         | ✗           | ✓           | ✓           | ✓      | XX.X  | 0.XXX | 0.XXX  |
| w/o B         | ✓           | ✗           | ✓           | ✓      | XX.X  | 0.XXX | 0.XXX  |
| w/o C         | ✓           | ✓           | ✗           | ✓      | XX.X  | 0.XXX | 0.XXX  |
| w/o Loss A    | ✓           | ✓           | ✓           | ✗      | XX.X  | 0.XXX | 0.XXX  |
| A+B only      | ✓           | ✓           | ✗           | ✗      | XX.X  | 0.XXX | 0.XXX  |
```

#### Ablation Design Principles

1. **One variable at a time**: Each row changes exactly one component
2. **Show interaction effects**: Include rows that combine removal of 2+ components
3. **Use consistent dataset**: Ablations on a single representative dataset are fine
4. **Include running time**: Show the computational cost of each component
5. **Statistical significance**: Run 3 seeds if results are close

#### Common Ablation Targets

| Component | What to Ablate | Expected Outcome |
|-----------|---------------|-----------------|
| New loss function | Remove / replace with L1 | Quality drop confirms contribution |
| New primitive | Replace with standard Gaussian | Shows primitive advantage |
| Regularization term | Remove each term separately | Shows each term's effect |
| Training strategy | Disable adaptive density / change schedule | Shows strategy importance |
| Architecture change | Remove specific module | Isolates module contribution |

### Step 6: Visualization Plan

#### Must-Have Figures

| Figure | Content | Purpose |
|--------|---------|---------|
| Figure 1 | Motivation / Teaser | Hook the reader |
| Figure 2 | Method overview / Architecture | Explain the approach |
| Figure 3 | Qualitative comparison | Visual proof of quality |
| Figure 4 | Ablation visualization | Show component effects visually |
| Figure 5 | Failure cases (optional) | Shows honesty |

#### Recommended Visual Comparisons

- Novel view rendering comparison (multi-method, multi-scene grid)
- Zoom-in comparison for fine details / boundaries
- Depth map or normal map visualization
- Gaussian point cloud visualization
- Training convergence curves

### Step 7: Efficiency Analysis

When making efficiency claims, include:

| Aspect | Measurement | Report Format |
|--------|------------|---------------|
| Training time | Wall-clock hours per scene | "X hours on 1x RTX 4090" |
| Rendering speed | FPS at resolution Y | "XX FPS at 1080p" |
| Peak VRAM | GB during training/inference | "X GB peak" |
| Model storage | MB per scene | "X MB" |
| Scaling behavior | Time vs #images / resolution | Plot or table |

**Always report GPU model** — reviewers compare across papers.

## Output Format

Generate a complete experiment plan:

```
## Experiment Plan for [Method Name]

### 1. Datasets
| Priority | Dataset | Scenes | Reason |
|----------|---------|--------|--------|
| Must | ... | ... | ... |

### 2. Baselines
| Priority | Method | Venue | Category |
|----------|--------|-------|----------|
| Must | ... | ... | ... |

### 3. Metrics
| Must Report | Optional |
|-------------|----------|
| PSNR, SSIM, LPIPS | FPS, VRAM, ... |

### 4. Ablation Study
| # | What to Remove | Expected Impact |
|---|---------------|-----------------|
| 1 | ... | ... |

### 5. Figure Plan
| Figure | Content | Target Page |
|--------|---------|-------------|
| Fig 1 | ... | 1 |

### 6. Efficiency Analysis
- Training: ...
- Rendering: ...
- Memory: ...

### 7. Anticipated Reviewer Concerns & Preemptive Responses
| Concern | Response Strategy |
|---------|------------------|
| "Why not compare with X?" | ... |
```

## Rules

1. **Be practical**: Consider the actual computational budget. Don't suggest 100 scenes if the author has 1 GPU.
2. **Be realistic**: Don't claim "state-of-the-art" unless metrics clearly support it.
3. **Be thorough**: It's better to over-prepare than to receive "insufficient experiments" reviews.
4. **Venue-aware**: CVPR allows 8 pages + references. Budget your figures and tables accordingly.

> If you like it, please star this repo https://github.com/jaccen/Awesome-Gaussian-Skills