Optimize the Unseen - Fast NeRF Cleanup with Free Space Prior
Authors: Leo Segre
Shai Avidan
Venue: NeurIPS 2025 poster ()
Keywords: NeRF Cleanup
NeRF
3D vision
Primary area: applications
TL;DR: Fast, post-hoc NeRF cleanup method, that is based on a Free Space Prior, to eliminate "Floaters" from NeRFs

Abstract: Neural Radiance Fields (NeRF) have advanced photorealistic novel view synthesis, but their reliance on photometric reconstruction introduces artifacts, commonly known as "floaters". These artifacts degrade novel view quality, particularly in unseen regions where NeRF optimization is unconstrained. We propose a fast, post-hoc NeRF cleanup method that eliminates such artifacts by enforcing a Free Space Prior, ensuring that unseen regions remain empty while preserving the structure of observed areas. Unlike existing approaches that rely on Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimation or complex, data-driven priors, our method adopts a Maximum-a-Posteriori (MAP) approach with a simple yet effective global prior. This enables our method to clean artifacts in both seen and unseen areas, significantly improving novel view quality even in challenging scene regions. Our approach generalizes across diverse NeRF architectures and datasets while requiring no additional memory beyond the original NeRF. Compared to state-of-the-art cleanup methods, our method is 2.5x faster in inference and completes cleanup training in under 30 seconds. Our code will be made publicly available.

Optimize the Unseen Fast NeRF Cleanup with Free Space Prior
Leo Segre
Shai Avidan
Tel Aviv University
leosegre @ mai..tau.aciii avidan@eng.tau.ac.
https://leosegre github. it/ unsen/
Abstract
Neural Radiance Fields (NeRF) have advanced photorealistic novel view synthesis, but their reliance on photometric reconstruction introduces artifacts, commonly known as "floaters". These artifacts degrade novel view quality, particularly in unseen regions where NeRF optimization is unconstrained. We propose fast, post- hoc NeRF cleanup method that eliminates such artifacts by enforcing Free Space Prior, ensuring that unseen regions remain empty while preserving the structure of observed areas. Unlike existing approaches that rely on Maximum Likelihood (MI.) estimation or complex, data-driven priors, our method adopts a Maximum-a- Posteriori (MAP) approach with simple yet effective global prior. This enables our method to clean artifacts in both seen and unseen areas, significantly improving novel view quality even in challenging scene regions. Our approach generalizes across diverse NeRF architectures and datasets while requiring additional memory beyond the original NeRF, Compared state-of-the-ar cleanup methods, our method is 2.5x faster in inference and completes cleanup training in under 30 seconds.
Introduction
Neural Radiance Fields (NeRF) have emerged as leading technique in photorealistic scene recon- struction and novel view synthesis, effectively capturing complex scenes from limited set of images. However, NeRF's reliance on photometric optimization introduces a significant limitation: it performs poorly in regions of the scene that lack direct observations from the training images. This results in visual artifacts, commonly referred to as "floaters", which are density accumulations in areas unseen by the training cameras. These floaters degrade rendering quality, especially in novel views where the artifacts may obscure scene surfaces or introduce false details, as illustrated Fig. T
While state-of-the-ar approaches for NeRF cleanup mitigate artifacts, they often come with high computational cost. Nerfbusters 31 uses 3D diffusion models to generate a learned, data-driven 3D prior. This requires NeRF fine-tuning and results in substantial computational demands and extended cleanup training time. BayesRays [00, an alternative approach, reduces cleanup time by performing post-hoe mncertainty-based cleanup; however, it does not modify the NeRF scene itself. Instead, it applies uncertainty-bar based filtering during inference to clean the rendered frames, which introduces considerable overhead each frame requires additional uncertainty estimation and processing. These approaches highlight key trade-off in existing methods between efficient artifact removal and computational expense, underscoring the need for
effective solution.
Unlike previous methods, which often require architecture-specffi modifications or extensive fine- tuning, our approach is robust and generalizes effectively across diverse NeRF architectures and datasets, as demonstrated in Fig. I This flexibility makes our method applicable to a wide range of
39th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NcurIPS 2025).

---

Method
Nerfacto
Instant-NGP
LeRF "Lego" prompt
Seathru-NeRF
OpenNeRF
Near Training Cameras
Clean With Optimize the Unseen
After
Dataset
Nerfbusters
MipNeRF-360
LeRF
Seathru
KITTI-360
The top row shows novel views taken near the training cameras, while the middle row presents novel views from farther away. The bottom row demonstrates the same distant views after applying our cleanup method, effectively removing artifacts while preserving scene integrity. Our approach generalizes well across wide range of NeRF methods and datasets see supplementary material for video demonstrations.
Figure 1: Density Cleanup Across NeRF Variants and Datasets:
scenarios, outperforming other cleanup methods that are constrained by their reliance on specific priors or additional computational overhead.
key contribution of our work is that we sample across the entire 3D space, not just along rays. Samples along the rays ensure NeRF fits the given scene, while samples in 3D space introduce Free Space Prior. This contribution makes our approach lightweight and efficient: we only fine-tune the NeRF itself, without training additional networks increasing inference-time memory and computation. As result, floaters are minimized without disrupting the scene's 's intended structure or introducing additional memory requirements. The method is both efficient and highly compatible with existing NeRF cleanup models, offering significant improvement in speed and memory efficiency compared to tate-of-the-aa art artifact removal techniques.
The contributions of our method are summarized as follows:
Efficient and Lightweight: Our approach requires no additional memory beyond the original NeRF, is 2.5x faster in inference time, and 1.5x faster in cleanup training compared current sfute-of-the-ars methods.
Unlike previous methods that refine only regions observed by training cameras, our method actively optimizes density across unseen regions, enforcing a clean 3D representation and reducing artifacts throughout the scene.
Optimization in Unseen Regions:
Robust and Generalizable: Our approach generalizes seamlessly across different NeRF architectures and datasets, requiring no architectural modifications or learned priors, making it widely applicable various real-world scenarios.
State-of-the-Are Artifact Removal: Our method effectively eliminates floaters and other density artifacts, enhancing novel view syuthesis quality while preserving scene details.
2 Related Work
Artifacts in Photometric Optimization Methods based on photometric reconstruction 21 20 such as NeRF (22) and 3D Gaussian Splatting [33, have become leading techniques 3D recon- struction due to their ability to generate high-quality, detailed scene representations by modeling the scene from multi-view images. These methods excel reconstructing complex geometry and capturing subtle visual details by leveraging the information embedded in photometric data. However, due to their reliance on photometric reconstruction, which inherently contains uncertainties stemming from incomplete noisy input data, these methods prone to visual artifacts. While artifacts in

---

o(u
priior
Randomly sampled points
NeRF
Co(r)
Ree
Points sampled the rays
Surface
GT Image
Figure 2: Overview of Our Cleanup Method: Our approach fine-tunes pre-trained NeRF by optimizing density across both seen and unseen regions. We sample points in two ways: (1) along the original training rays (green points), maintaining consistency with the observed scene structure, and (2) randomly across the entire 3D space (blue points), enforcing our Free Space Prior to remove artifacts in unseen areas. Importantly, ensuring that empty regions remain free of unwanted density accumulations. This ensures effective cleanup of floaters while preserving scene integrity.
also apply the Free Space Prior behind scene surfaces,
Gaussian Splatting typically concentrate around scene structures due imperfect Gaussian optimiza- tion 37 34], NeRF artifacts are more widely distributed across the scene, often impacting novel Views severely.
Neural Radiance Fields (NeRFs) [22] often exhibit visual artifacts, such as "floaters" and density inconsistencies, due to training data imperfections, including incomplete scene coverage and data noise. These issues introduce uncertainties in unobserved regions, which can be divided into aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty. Aleatoric uncertainty, arising from data noise like lighting changes or transient objects, has been addressed in dynamic scenes by works such as NeRF-W (18] and others In contrast, our focus is on static scenes with epistemic uncertainty, stemming from incomplete scene information. Approaches like CF-NeRF (28 use variational inference to capture this uncertainty in geometry, while BayesRays [TO] applies Bayesian framework estimate epistemic uncertainty post-training. Our work specifically addresses cleanup of artifacts in static scenes caused by epistemic uncertainty.
26 25
NeRF Cleanup. Various methods have been proposed to address the visual artifacts common in NeRF reconstructions. Nerfbusters [1] introduced post-processing technique using diffusion mod- els that learns a local 3D data-driven prior from synthetic data. This data-driven prior, incorporated during NeRF optimization, encourages plausible geometry but requires extensive training and NeRF fine-tuning, adding significant computational overhead. Another approach, BayesRays (IO), leverages post-hoc solution by thresholding uncertainty field to mask high-uncertainty regions, effectively cleaning artifacts at inference time but at the cost of increased computation during rendering.
These methods, though effective, often come with trade-offss in memory consumption, cleanup time, or inference speed. In contrast, our approach removes artifacts efficiently, preserving the original NeRF's structure and performance without requiring additional models extensive post-processing, based only on our Free Space Prior. This ensures both speed and practicality in artifact cleanup.
Prior-Based Optimization Data-driven optimization is standard in deep learning, but numerous studies demonstrate that incorporating well-chosen prior significantly boost performance.
For instance, priors have proven effective in inverse problems like image denoising [5] 12 33 27
6. 7). In particular, [6] 7 introduce global image prior enforcing sparsity, showcasing how
Bayesian framework can yield a simple yet powerful denoising algorithm. In the context of 3D reconstruction, priors and regularization play similarly critical roles. Nerfbusters [31] uses local prior to improve scene fidelity and RegNeRF [24] employs a 2D Total Variation (TV) regularizer to rendered images, both maintaining the standard NeRF architecture
we do. Other methods modify the architecture. For example, Plenoxels [35] employs 3D Total Variation (TV) regularizer to reduce abrupt density changes between neighboring voxels and 2D TV regularization is also applied in factorized plenoptic fields 4 9 Plenoctrees (36) incorporates a sparsity loss within complex pipeline for faster rendering but at high memory and training costs. To address anti-aliasing, Zip-NeRF [3] and MipNeRF-360 [2] applies distortion loss and interlevel loss, reducing artifacts and

---

improving consistency. While effective, this regularization alone does not eliminate floaters, as our results show, highlighting the need for stronger constraint on unseen regions.
Inspired by the above, our method employs global prior to enforce free space within NeRF 3D) scenes, enhancing NeRF's rendering performance.
3 Background
Understanding NeRF is essential to grasp the significance of our work and its contributions to the field. In this section, we review the fundamental concepts NeRF and discuss the challenges associated with artifact generation in unobserved regions, which our approach aims to overcome.
3.1 Neural Radiance Fields
NeRF 22 is approach for synthesizing novel views of 3D scenes. Each point in 3D space is represented by a view-dependent radiance and view-independent density, expressed as follows:
c d). (x) = R(x, d:
(1)
Here, & denotes the learnable parameters of the neural network. The color along ray = + tt.d determined by sampling points i along the ray:
(Φ(r)= =
Σ exp
Er TJō (1 - (1-xxp(-Troo) cs: jdi
In this equation, 8, represents the distance between successive sampled points. The optimization of the network parameters & aims to minimize the reconstruction loss, which is defined as the squared distance between the predicted and ground truth colors for each ray sampled from the training images R = [r]
Cro
El(C((r) - C (r)ll FER
An important observation from Eq. (2) is that NeRF's optimization occurs per-pixel basis, with the color of each pixel computed along a single ray. Since density decreases exponentially along the ray after it intersects the first surface, there is effectively no optimization beyond that surface, and certainly none where the ray does not pass through. Consequently, unseen regions remain unoptimized, often resulting in unwanted artifacts these areas.
4 Method
Our approach, as shown in Fig. is designed post-hoc refinement. It takes pre-trained NeRF model along with its training cameras and optimize it to remove artifacts unseen regions while retaining the scene's 's intended features.
To date, NeRF models, and NeRF cleanup methods in particular, searched for density field that best explains the given data. That is, they look for the maximum likelihood solution to the problem. Some methods extend this by learning general data distribution over multiple 3D scenes, creating local prior for artifact removal. In contrast, we apply simple, global prior on the density a We take the prior P(a) be the zero density prior.
This global approach not only simplifies the optimization process but also ensures versatility and robustness across different NeRF architectures and datasets. Unlike learned priors that depend specific scene distributions, our method operates effectively regardless of scene complexity or data variations, making it widely applicable and independent of dataset-specific assumptions.
We base our method on the assumption that "There is nothing in the unseen regions". While this assumption does not necessarily hold in real-world scenarios, for NeRF reconstructions, it is more

---

Nerfecto 225era
225ers
503mo
200tro
205ro
225
20ro
Part
Figure 3: Qualitative Cleanup Results: Comparison of cleanup methods on the Plant and Roses scenes from the Nerfbusters dataset, with inference time per frame shown. Each image is novel view rendered post-cleanup, highlighting the balance between artifact removal and scene coverage. Methods like Free Space Prior and BayesRays (0.9) achieve high coverage with minimal artifacts, while Nerfbusters and BayesRays (0.3) trade coverage for stronger cleanup. Our approach achieves similar results to BayesRays with 40% rendering time.
practical than allowing unseen regions to contain unregulated noise. To enforce this assumption, we apply a sigmoid-softened density prior term that gently drives density a toward zero
Enforcing the Free Space Prior Ideally, we would like to directly set densities zero only in the unseen regions. However, determining which regions are strictly unobserved by training rays is challenging due scene occlusions and structural complexity. Additionally, even if feasible, this direct approach would be computationally expensive. So. instead of explicitly setting densities, we apply the Free Space Prior uniformly across the entire 3D space, affecting both seen and unseen regions. This approach simplifies computation while guiding NeRF optimization to achieve cleaner density distributions.
To implement this, we randomly sample A points across the 3D space and query the NeRF model & for densities at these points, resulting in set Σ {a(x;) x; E R3, i = ........ .N} of density values. We then construct a softened density term for the Free Space Prior, which we integrate into a Free Space Prior Loss term:
CISP Σ i=1
(4)
1+e-
This Free Space Prior Loss optimizes the NeRF parameters & by enforcing densities to be zero, reflecting our assumption that "There is nothing in the unseen regions". However, this loss also inadvertently reduces densities in visible regions, where densities should ideally reflect the actual scene structure.
Balancing Cleanup and Scene Integrity Applying the Free Space Prior Loss indiscriminately across 3D space can lead to an empty scene, as the randomly enforced zero-density constraint propagates, causing the MLP to approximate densities as zero throughout the space. To counter this, we introduce a combination of two competing losses: the Free Space Prior Loss Eq. (4) reduce densities in unseen regions and the NeRF photometric loss Eq. 3 applied along training rays to preserve the scene structure and appearance.
This interaction between losses results in three distinct regions:
Unseen Regions: Only the Free Space Prior Loss affects these regions, pushing densities toward zero and removing floaters. particular, the densities occluded regions are also set to zero.
Empty Seen Regions (along the ray to the surface): Both the Free Space Prior Loss and the photometric loss act here, agreeing that the density should be zero
Surface Seen Regions: Both losses are active, but they compete, as the Free Space Prior Loss encourages lower densities while the photometric loss preserves the actual scene structure.
5

---

Denuity Ray
Denally Along Ray
Nerbhtto Bastro
Deraay
Scrril rrumber along the 1oy
Sample number slong the ray
(Left) Novel view rendered with the Nerfacto Baseline, with a red dot marking the sampled ray and the density along the marked ray. (Right) The same novel view after our cleanup. Before cleanup, the density along the ray is noisy, with floaters causing unintended peaks. After cleanup, only the surface is captured, and densities in unseen regions are enforced to zero. Densities are sigmoid softened and shifted to [0.1].
Figure 4: Density Along a Ray:
Through this balanced combination, empty regions will ultimately reach zero density, eliminating floaters. In contrast, surface regions will settle on a density value that balances both losses, resulting in reduced yet preserved density that maintains accurate scene reconstruction, as shown in our experiments.
The overall loss function is:
L = Lree + XLPSP
(5)
where Ả controls the trade-off between preserving scene structure and removing artifacts. We set A = 0.1 for all visualizations in the paper. À analysis is in the supplementary A.5
4.1 NeRF Regularization
NeRF reconstruction is inherently an ill-posed problem many solutions can fit the observed images. The highly expressive MI.P satisfies the photometric loss along training rays while potentially assigning arbitrary densities in unobserved regions. This results in an under-constrained system where only a subset of solutions is physically meaningful. Drawing a parallel to Ridge regression, we consider L2 regularized MLP to represent the NeRF. The L2 regularizer directly penalizes the parameters, favoring the minimum-norm solution and stabilizing an ill-posed problem.
Yet, there is a difference between the two. L2 regularization places a prior on the weight of the MLP, whereas our Free Space Prior places prior on the densities themselves. Specifically, instead of regularizing the network weights directly, we regularize a specific component of the output the predicted densities. Since our objective formulated as a loss optimized via backpropagation, we explicitly sample the 3D) space enforce this regularization in unobserved regions. This modified approach resolves the ill-posedness by favoring solutions with minimal densities in free space, while preserving the correct photometric reconstruction in observed regions.
Results
We evaluate our NeRF cleanup method by an- alyzing its performance in the NeRF cleanup task, comparing both quantitative metrics and computational efficiency in terms of cleanup and inference speed. We report numerical results to quantify the reduction of artifacts (floaters) and demonstrate that our approach achieves signif- icant speedup while maintaining high-quality novel view synthesis.
Table 1: Runtime Comparison: Inference time (ms/frame) is averaged across all Nerfbusters scenes. Both Nerfbusters and Free Space Prior only the fnne-tuned NeRF at inference, result- ing in identical inference runtime.
Method
Cleanup Time (s)
Inference Time (ms)
Nerfbosters BayesRays
1200
205
37
506
Free Space Price (Ours)
25
2055
Beyond numerical evaluations, we qualitatively assess our method across a diverse range of NeRF architectures and datasets, showcasing its effec- tiveness in different scenarios. Additionally, we conduct ablation studies to analyze the impact of key components in our design, offering insights into their role artifact removal. The implementation details are in the supplementary Appendix A.2

---

5.1 Dataset and Evaluation Setup
We follow the experimental protocols established by Nerfbusters [1 and BayesRays [10]. Our goal is to assess each method's 's ability to eliminate these artifacts while preserving the quality and completeness of the reconstructed scenes. For quantitative evaluation, we use the Nerfbusters dataset [I. which is the standard benchmark for NeRF cleanup methods. Unlike other datasets, which primarily focus on reconstructing regions well-covered by training views, Nerfbusters uniquely provides evaluation views that are significantly farther from the training cameras, making it the most challenging and relevant dataset for artifact removal. This ensures that cleanup methods are tested under realistic conditions where unseen regions contribute to artifacts. In addition to the quantitative evaluation on Nerfbusters, we qualitatively evaluate our method across diverse range of NeRF architectures and datasets, demonstrating its generalizability and effectiveness in different scenarios.
Coverage Metric We adopt the coverage met- ric as introduced by Nerfbusters [31]. which measures the percentage of pixels in the eval- uation image that are accurately reconstructed after masking out regions that were either un- seen in the training views or are too distant to be relevant (based on a predefined depth threshold).
Coverage
3.1
21.5
Tes Space Nar
Baseline Our baseline model (Nerfacto) is built on modern NeRF architectures, incorporat- ing several recent advancements, including hash grid encoding from iNGP (23). proposal sam- pling and scene contraction from MipNeRF(1, distortion loss from MipNeRF360 [2] as well as per-image appearance optimization from NeRF-
Teguarottinn
25
Coverage
Figure 5: Quantitative Cleanup Results: PSNR vs. Coverage comparison of cleanup methods across different thresholds X. Higher values indi- cate better performance, with the optimal region in the upper-right corner. Results are averaged across all Nerfbusters scenes for comprehensive evalua- tion.
in-the- Wild [19). While these techniques pro- vide degree of regularization, they fail pre- vent the accumulation of artifacts in unseen re- gions. Our Free Space Prior directly addresses this issue by enforcing explicit density con- straints in these areas.
To measure performance, we report PSNR and Coverage scores, which quantify both reconstruction quality and the extent which the scene is accurately rendered without artifacts.
In addition to this standard evaluation (Appendix AA.4). we introduce and evaluate a modified experiment that makes the task more realistic and challenging: previous evaluations calculated PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS using the ground truth (GT) mask, which only considers the object region. This overestimate performance, artifacts outside the GT mask ignored. In our setup, the metries computed over the predicted mask, penalizing methods that leave artifacts outside the GT mask (Appendix A.6). This stricter evaluation ensures that methods are assessed their true ability to remove artifacts while preserving scene integrity.
5.2 Performance Comparison
Cleanup Performance We evaluate our approach both qualitatively (Fig. 3) and quantitatively (Fig. 5). using the challenging modified evaluation (i.e., using the predicted mask evaluate results).
Striking a balance between PSNR and coverage is crucial, as high PSNR with low coverage can be misleading. For instance, shown in Fig. BayesRays at 0.3 threshold achieves the highest PSNR but suffers from low coverage, leading to noticeable gaps in the reconstructed scene (Fig. that compromise overall image quality.
As also seen Fig. 5 Free Space Prior demonstrates high coverage while maintaining PSNR comparable to Rays,Rays, the current state-of-thh-arr in NeRF cleanup. Among the other methods, Nerfbusters exhibits significantly lower coverage and PSNR, indicating excessive artifact removal. In contrast, L2 regularization, Gaussian Splatting, and the Nerfacto baseline exhibit excellent coverage
7

---

Histogram of Densities Bfore Cleanup
Histogram Densities After Cleanup
Count
Deñsity Values
Density Values
Figure Density Histogram: Histogram of densities across the Pikachu scene after sigmoid- softened, shifted to [O, II. (Left) Histogram of densities across the scene before the cleanup process.
(Right) Histogram of the densities across the scene after the cleanup process.
but lower PSNR, retaining more scene information while struggling with artifact suppression and overall scene fidelity, highlighting the dataset's challenge.
Our method, as well as BayesRays with a 0.9 threshold, produce visually superior results that retain the scene's 's structure and coverage, making them more visually appealing and accurate human eye. These images highlight that our method preserves both high coverage and high PSNR, outperforming Nerfbusters and L2 regularization, which, while comparable in inference time, achieves lower PSNR and coverage than our method.
For completeness. show that method also works if applied during the training phase when learning the NeRF from scratch. In that case, our method makes the cleanup phase redundant. The visual results (A 10 50 are shown in Fig. and the numerical details are in the appendix Tab.
Runtime Performance Our method combines fast cleanup and inference times (Tab. D while maintaining high-quality artifact cleanup (Fig- 55. For inference, both Nerfbusters and our method achieve a per-framme rendering time of 205 ms, as each directly tine-tunes the NeRF without adding additional overhead at inference. In contrast, BayesRays incurs significant slowdown, with per-frame inference time of 506 ms ms-2.5 times slower slower-due due to its additional uncertainty thresholding applied during rendering.
For cleanup time, Nerfbusters employs a pre-trained 3D diffusion model to fine-tune NeRF per scene, resulting in high cleanup time of approximately 20 minutes per scene. BayesRays is faster, taking 37 seconds to gather data for Hessian computation, while our approach the fastest, completing cleanup training in just 25 seconds.
5.3 Geometric Evaluation
While NeRF is photometric based method, it represents a 3D scene with geometric properties. To evaluate the cleanup quality, in addition to the photometric evaluation we conducted three ge- ometric experiments the Nerfbusters dataset as shown in Table 2
Table 2: Comparison of methods geometric metrics.
Methed
Chamfer Distance)
Ouz
0,111
3,50
LA2
28.64
Bayoskaps
0.011
3.91
1,77
28.1
Chamfer Distance: We measured Chamfer Distance between pre-cleanup and post-cleanup scenes. For each scene, we generated 35k 35k-point point clouds using training cameras and NeRF reconstructions (pre- and post-cleanup), then computed Chamfer Distance between them.
Depth Consistency: We evaluated surface preservation using depth maps check whether they remain consistent after cleanup on the training images. For the most accurate measurement, we compared rendered depth maps pseudo-gt depth maps derived from NeRF trained on both training and test images.
PSNR Training Images: We measured the PSNR of training rendered images after cleanup. The rationale that validating scene integrity using training images ensures that the core mechanism of NeRF reconstruction is preserved even through the cleanup phase.
All three geometric evaluations confirm that our uniform sampling strategy preserves geometric details effectively method achieves comparable or better scores compared to BayesRays.

---

5.4 Robustness
Our method designed to be robust across different NeRF architectures and datasets, ensuring effective artifact removal across a variety of conditions. Unlike methods that rely on architecture- specific modifications or learned priors trained on specific datasets, our Free Space Prior provides generalizable solution that applies seamlessly to different NeRF formulations.
As shown in Fig. I evaluate our method across diverse NeRF architectures, including Ner- facto [30]. Instant-NGP [23], LeRF [14). Seathru-NeRF [16], and Open-NeRF [8], each of which has distinct optimization techniques and applications. Our approach also generalizes well across challenging datasets, such as Nerfbusters [31], MipNeRF-360 [2], LeRF [14], Seathru [16]. and KITTI-360 [17]. covering a range of real-world and synthetic environments. These results highlight the versatility of our method, effectively reducing artifacts without requiring architecture-specffe
tuning.
Our prior works on the Seathru-NeRF dataset, which operates extreme underwater conditions. The physics of underwater imaging involves attenuation and back scatter, so density should not be zero. Yet, our prior reduces artifacts significantly. See Fig. [ column 4. Beyond novel view synthesis, our cleanup process enhances downstream tasks such as NeRF-based semantic segmentation and language-based scene understanding, as shown in Fig. columns 3 and 5.
5.5
Method Analysis
To better understand the effect of our Free Space Prior, we analyze how modifies the density distribution within the NeRF.
Density Histogram Analysis We visualize the density distribution before and after cleanup by sampling points randomly across the 3D space and plotting their density values, shown in Fig. 6 Before cleanup, the density histogram exhibits wide distribution, with intermediate densities appear- ing throughout the scene. These intermediate values correspond unwanted density accumulations (floaters) in unseen regions, which lack sufficient supervision during NeRF optimization.
After applying Free Space Prior, the density distribution shifts toward bimodal structure, where densities are either near zero (free space) or high (scene surfaces). This indicates that our method successfully removes floaters while preserving scene structures, leading cleaner and more physically meaningful density field. See Appendix A.9 for underwater analysis.
Density Along Ray To further illustrate the effect of our cleanup, examine the density values along a sampled ray, as shown in Fig. 4 Before cleanup, the ray passes through multiple unintended density peaks, corresponding floating artifacts that degrade novel view synthesis. After cleanup, these spurious densities are eliminated, and the ray exhibits only single, well-defined peak at the true surface, confirming that our method effectively enforces physically consistent density distributions.
5.6 Ablation Study
The Number of Randomly Sampled Points The rational behind selecting N is that N should be proportional to the reconstruction loss sam- pling density. each iteration, we use 4,096 rays with 352 samples per ray ( 1.45M sam- ples) for reconstruction loss. We chose 131K samples), which is approximately one order of magnitude smaller, ensuring the FSP loss pro- vides meaningful cleanup signal while adding minimal computational overhead.
PSNR vs Time (aabls show as powers of bwo)
25-2
25.0
23.0
252
The ablation study in Fig. 7 confirms our ra- tionale, N 227 achieves substantial cleanup improvements with only 10% additional runtime compared to minimal sampling, while avoiding the diminishing returns of higher values.
25 70 80
Figure 7: Number of Samples Study: PSNR vs. Cleanup Time the Pikachu scene for different N values. Our choice of N 2!7 marked in red.

---

Table 3: Comparison of different methods under sparse and dense view settings.
Sparse View
Denoe View
A Triin Images
24 insages (Every Mih)
47 images (Every 4th)
93 imnggea (Every 2nd)
161
insages (Regular)
Out of
Method
PSNR1
SSIM
LPIPSL
PSNR
SSIMI
LPIPS]
PSNR1
SSIM4
LPIPS.
PSNRT
SSIMI
LPIPSi
PSNR1
SSIM"
LPIPS)
Brse
22:32
0.637
34.41
0.003
0.226
25.33
0.224
0.212
25.00
0.731
0.212
27.74
0.789
0.181
BayesRaps
22.33
0.637
0.259
24.43
0.703
0.226
25.38
0.225
0.212
25.74
0.731
0.212
27.33
0.789
0.181
Ours
22:31
0.640
0.257
24.40
0,705
0.223
25.35
0.727
0,211
25.74
0.732
0.213
27.70
0.788
0.185
Sparse and Dense View Performance To overeome concerns around performance degradation we conducted an ablation study with sparse and dense view settings, comparing our method with À = 0.01 and BayesRays with 7 0.9, which achieve comparable coverage rates. The sparse view study is conducted on the Garden scene from mipNeRF-366 dataset. The results on Table 3 demonstrate that our method not only preserves NeRF's s interpolation capabilities under sparse training conditions but actually improves perceptual quality (SSIM/LPIPS) while maintaining comparable PSNR.
The dense view study is conducted on the mipNeRF-360 dataset and shown in Table 3 our method has a negligible influence and it maintains high-quality results while being 2.5x faster in inference compared to BayesRays.
Forcing Prior Along a Ray A key design choice in our method is sampling density across the entire 3D space. We conduct an ablation study to assess the impact of this global sam- pling strategy artifact removal.
Nerfacto Baseline
Space Prior
Rays Only Sampling
Rays Over-Samplig
alternative approach would be to apply the prior only to points sampled along training rays, as commonly done in NeRF-based regulariza- tion methods. We compare our full 3D sam- pling strategy with one that applies the prior loss solely along training rays, varying the number of samples per ray. As shown in Fig. g limiting op- timization training rays results in incomplete cleanup and leaves floaters in unseen regions.
Nerfacto Buseline
Free Space
Rays Ouly Sampling
Rays Only Over-Sampling
PSNR
19.3
25.6
19.9
20.6
Figure 8: Enforcing the Prior Along Training
Rays: (Top) cleanup result. (Bottom) PSNR on Pikachu scene.
Even with more samples per ray, cleanup improves only slightly and does not match the performance of full 3D sampling, which better regularizes completely unseen regions.
These results confirm that sampling beyond training rays is essential for effective NeRF cleanup. By enforcing the Free Space Prior across the entire 3D scene, our method ensures that unseen regions remain artifact-free, leading to significantly improved novel view quality.
Limitations
The method optimizes unseen regions while using reconstruction loss to preserve the original scene. As a result, it cannot correct artifacts caused by image inconsistencies, moving objects, poor bundle adjustment, noisy input images. It is only effective for artifacts resulting from under-optimizaaion in specific regions of the scene. An example of the limitation using noisy images is in Appendix A.8
7 Conclusion
We present an efficient cleanup method for NeRFs that leverages a simple yet effective Free Space Prior significantly reduce artifacts, particularly floaters, in unseen regions. Our approach eliminates these artifacts without modifying the NeRF architecture or increasing memory overhead, making it a lightweight and scalable solution. We demonstrate that our method outperforms SOTA cleanup approaches in both efficiency and quality. achieving up to 2.5x faster inference, 1.5x faster cleanup, and requiring no additional memory. Furthermore, our approach robust across diverse NeRF architectures and datasets, effectively reducing artifacts in a variety of real-world and synthetic scenarios. By preserving scene fidelity while ensuring consistent and generalizable artifact removal, our method provides practical and widely applicable solution for enhancing NeRF-based NVS.
10

---

Acknowledgments
Parts of the research were supported by Israel Innovation Authority Grant.
References
[1] Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Matthew Tancik, Peter Hedman, Ricardo Martin- Brualla, and Pratul P. Srinivasan. Mip-nerf: A multiscale representation for anti-aliasing neural radiance fields, 2021.
[2] Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman, Mip-nerf 360: Unbounded anti-aliased neural radiance fields. CVPR, 2022.
[3] Jonathan Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Dor Verbin, Pratul P. Srinivasan, and Peter Hedman. Zip-nerf: Anti-aliased grid-based neural radiance fields. ICCV, 2023.
[4] Anpei Chen, Zexiang Xu, Andreas Geiger, Jingyi Yu, and Hao Su. Tensorf: Tensorial radiance fields, 2022.
[5] Weisheng Dong. Peiyao Wang, Wotao Yin, Guangming Shi, Fanglang Wu, and Xiaotong Lu. Denoising prior driven deep neural network for image restoration. IEEE Transactions Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 41(10):2305 2318, 2019.
M. Elad and M. Aharon. Image denoising via leamedd dictionaries and sparse representation. In 2006 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 06), pages 895-900, 2006.
[7] Michael Elad and Michal Aharon. Image denoising via sparse and redundant representations over learned dictionaries. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 15(12)33736-375,, 2006.
[8] Francis Engelmann, Fabian Manhardt, Michael Niemeyer, Keisuke Tateno, Mare Pollefeys, and Federico Tombari. OpenNeRF: Open Set 3D Neural Scene Segmentation with Pixel-Wis Wise Features and Rendered Novel Views. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024.
[9] Sara Fridovich-Keil Giacomo Mcanti, Frederik Warburg, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. K- planes: Explicit radiance fields space, time, and appearance, 2023.
[10] Lily Goli, Cody Reading, Silvia Sellán, Alec Jacohson, and Andrea Tagliasacchi. Bayes' Rays: Uncertainty quantification in neural radiance fields. CVPR, 2024.
[11] Liren Jin, Xieyuanli Chen, Julius Rückin, and Marija Popović. Neu-nby: Next best view planning using uncertainty estimation in image based neural rendering. In 2023 JEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 11305 113122 2023.
[12] Yconsik Jo, Se Young Chun, and Jonghyun Choi. Rethinking deep image prior for denoising. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 5087-5096, 2021.
[13] Bernhard Kerbl, Georgios Kopanas, Thomas Leimkühler, and George Drettakis. 3d gaussian splatting for real-time radiance field rendering, 2023.
[14] Justin Ker,, Chung Min Kim, Ken Goldberg, Angjoo Kanazawa, and Matthew Tancik. Lerf: Language embedded radiance fields. In International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023.
[15] Arn Knapitsch, Jaesik Park, Qian-Yt Yi Zhou, and Vladlen Koltun. Tanks and temples: Benchmarking large-scale scene reconstruction. ACM Transactions Graphics, 36(4). 2017.
[16] Deborah Levy, Amit Peleg, Naama Pcarl, Dan Rosenbaum, Derya Akkaynak, Simon Korman, and Tali Treibitz. Seathru-nerf: Neural radiance fields in scattering media. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 56 66-65, 2023.
[17] Yiyi Liao, Jun Xie, and Andreas Geiger. KITTI-360: A novel dataset and benchmarks for urban scene understanding in 2d and 3d. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), 2022.
[18] Ricardo BaatinnBruuala, Noha Radwan, Mehdi S. Sajjadi, Jonathan T. Barron. Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Daniel Duckworth. NeRF in the Wild: Neural Radiance Fields for Unconstrained Photo Collections. In CVPR, 2021.
[19] Ricardo Martin Brualla, Noha Radwan, Mehdi S. M. Sajjadi, Jonathan T. Barron, Alexey Dosovitskiy, and Daniel Duckworth. Nerf in the wild: Neural radiance fields for unconstrained photo collections, 2021.
11

---

[20] N. Max. Optical models for direct volume rendering. IEEE Trunsactions on Visualization and Computer Graphicx, 1(2):99-108, 1995.
[21] Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Rodrigo Ortiz-Cayon, Nima Khademi Kalantari, Ravi Ramamoorthi, Ren Ng. and Abhishek Kar. Local light field fusion: Practical view synthesis with prescriptive sampling guidelines, 2019.
[22] Ben Mildenhall, Pratul P. Srinivasan, Matthew Tancik, Jonathan T. Barron, Ravi Ramamoorthi, and Ren Ng. Nerf: Representing scenes as neural radiance fields for view synthesis. In ECCV, 2020.
[23] Thomas Müller, Alex Evans, Christoph Schied, and Alexander Keller. Instant neural graphics primitives with multiresolution hash encoding, ACM Transactions on Graphicx, 41(4):1-15, 2022.
[24] Michael Niemeyer, Jonathan T. Barron, Ben Mildenhall, Mehdi S. M. Sajjadi, Andreas Geiger, and Noha Radwan. Regnerf: Regularizing neural radiance fields for view synthesis from sparse inputs. 2021.
[25] Keunhong Park, Utkarsh Sinha, Jonathan T. Barron, Sofien Bouaziz, Dan B Goldman, Steven M. Seitz, and Ricardo Martin-Brualla. Nerfies: Deformable neural radiance fields. ICCV, 2021.
[26] Yunlong Ran, Jing Zeng, Shibo Hc, Jiming Chen, Lincheng Li, Yingfeng Chen, Gimhee Lee, and Qi Ye. Neurar: Neural uncertainty for autonomous reconstruction with implicit neural representations. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, (0)-1125-1133 2023.
[27] Chao Ren, Xiaohai He, Chuncheng Wang, and Zhibo Zhao. Adaptive consistency prior based deep network for image denoising. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages
2021.
[28] Jianxiong Shen, Antonio Agudo, Francesc Moreno-Noguer, and Adria Ruiz. Conditional-flow nerf: Accurate 3d modelling with reliable uncertainty quantification, 2022.
[29]
Noah Snavely, Steven M. Seitz, and Richard Szeliski. Photo tourism: exploring photo collections in 3d. ACM Trans. Graph., 25(3):835-844 2006.
[30] Matthew Tancik, Ethan Weber, Evonne Ng. Ruilong Li, Brent Yi, Justin Kerr, Terrance Wang, Alexander Kristoffersen, Jake Austin, Kamyar Salahi, Abhik Ahuja, David McAllister, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Nerfstudio: A modular framework for neural radiance field development. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2023 Conference Proceedings. 2023.
[31] Frederik Warburg*, Ethan Weber Matthew Tancik, Aleksander Holyúski, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Nerf- busters: Removing ghostly artifacts from casually captured nerfs. International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2023.
[32] Tianyi Xie, Zeshun Zong, Yuxing Qiu, Xuan Li, Yutao Feng. Yin Yang. and Chenfanfu Jiang. Physgaussian: Physics-integrated 3d gaussians for generative dynamics, 2024.
[33] Jun Xu, Lei Zhang, and David Zhang. External prior guided internal prior learning for real-world noisy image denoising. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing. 27(6) -0100,0000000000000 2018.
[34] Zongxin Ye. Wenyu Sidun Liu, Peng Qiao, and Yong Dou. Absgs: Recovering fine details for 3d gaussian splatting. 2024.
[35] Alex Yu, Sara Fridovich-Keil Matthew Tancik, Qinhong Chen, Benjamin Recht, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Plenoxels: Radiance fields without neural networks, 2021.
[36] Alex Yu, Ruilong Li, Matthew Tancik, Hao Li, Ren Ng, and Angjoo Kanazawa. Plenoctrees real-time rendering of neural radiance fields, 2021.
[37] Zehao Yu, Torsten Sattler, and Andreas Geiger. Gaussian opacity fields: Efficient adaptive surface reconstruction in unbounded scenes, 2024.
[38] Kaan Yücer, Alexander Sorkine-Hornung, Oliver Wang, and Olga Sorkine Horning. Efficient 3d object segmentation from densely sampled light fields with applications to 3d reconstruction. ACM Trans. Graph., 33(), 2016.
12

---

A Technical Appendices and Supplementary Material
A.1 Appendix Overview
This document contains supplemental material regarding the following topies:
A.1 Implementation Details
A.2 Appendix Overview
A.3 Method Robustness Discussion and visualization of the robustness of our method.
A.4 Evaluation Using the Old Paradigm Evaluation using the original Nerfbusters evaluation.
A.5 Choosing À Discussion about the temperature parameter À
A.6 Full Quantitative Results The numerical results including a discussion about Dice score as an alternative coverage metric.
A.7 Additional Qualitative Results more visual examples of our method.
A.8 Noisy images Study Study about the limitations.
A.9 Densities in Complex Medium Underwater analysis.
A.2
Implementation Details
All experiments were conducted using the latest version of Nerfacto and Splatfacto from Nerfstudio 30,, pre-trained for 30,000 steps. Comparisons between different methods were performed on the same pre-trained base NeRF model to ensure consistency. In our method, density optimization was achieved with 1.000 iterations using 2º randomly sampled points across the 3D scene space. Optimization was carried out through Nerfacto's 's optimizers. All experiments were run on a single NVIDIA RTX A5000 GPU. Results for BayesRays [TO] and Nerfbusters [3] were generated using their respective pipelines, including the pre-trained 3D diffusion model weights provided by Nerf- busters. The predicted mask indicates the presence of "ssmmehiin" in a pixel after cleanup, created by thresholding the density accumulation at 0.98. The splatfacto model is based on Gaussian Splatting
13
with regularization to prevent artifacts 34
A.3
Method Robustness
The Nerfbusters dataset 3 is specifically designed to test the cleanup task with challenging evalua- tion camera positions, making it an excellent benchmark for assessing artifact removal. However, the floater artifact phenomenon is not unique to Nerfbusters-it is common issue across NeRF scenes. The primary limitation of other datasets is the lack of challenging evaluation cameras that can serve reliable ground truth for cleanup assessment.
To demonstrate the robustness and generalizability of our method. we evaluate it qualitatively on scenes from other widely used datasets. Specifically, we include results for the Garden scene from the mip-NeRF 360 dataset (2), the Basket scene from the Light Fields (LF) dataset (38), the Playground scene the from Tanks and Temples dataset [15), and the Trevi scene from the PhotoToourssn dataset (29] These scenes provide diverse settings with varying levels of complexity, testing the adaptability of our approach.
In Fig. g and the attached videos, we compare our method to the Nerfacto baseline. The results confirm that our method effectively removes artifacts while preserving scene details across wide range of scenes, underscoring its robustness beyond the Nerfbusters dataset.
A.4 Evaluation Using the Old Paradigm
As stated in the main paper, the conventional metric comparison has relied on GT masks to measure PSNR and Coverage. This approach allows methods that do not clean regions outside area of interest to achieve high PSNR and, more importantly, artificially inflated Coverage. In Fig. TO we demonstrate that this old paradigm introduces significant bias favor of the baseline, despite its practical noisiness, it disregards artifact-heavy regions outside the GT masks. Moreover,
13

---

Nerfacto
Free Space Prior
Garden
Basket
Playground
Trevi
Figure Qualitative comparison of cleanup results on various scenes: (Left) Novel view rendered using the Nerfacto model. (Right) The same view after applying our Free Space Prior cleanup. The evaluated scenes include Garden from the mip-NeRE 360 dataset, Basket from the Light Fields (LF) dataset, Playground from the Tanks and Temples dataset, and Trevi from the Photo Tourism dataset. Our method effectively removes artifacts while preserving scene details across diverse datasets.
14

---

PSNR vs Coverage
18.0
Free
Baseline
Bayesrays
17.8
17.6
PSNR
17.4
17.2
17.0
16.8
80
100
Coverage
Figure 10: Evaluation using old paradigm: Comparison of our method, BayesRays, and the baseline on the Nerfbusters dataset, calculating PSNR solely within the GT masks.
show that method achieves SOTA performance under the conventional paradigm, while also excelling in our upgraded metric paradigm.
A.5
Choosing A
Our method is robust to wide range of values as can be seen in E [10- 5, yields both high PSNR (17.35-17.69) and high coverage (8..5%%-96.45%%) This robustness stems from our method's design, which optimizes regions where the reconstruction loss is inactive. Even with small À values, the FSP loss dominates in these regions, yielding much cleaner results than default Nerfacto. We did not include experiments with À > 1, as this would imbalance the losses and violate the principle that the FSP loss should complement, not compete with, the reconstruction loss.
A.6 Full Quantitative Results
Tab. presents the complete evaluation results for all methods, directly correlating with the points depicted in Figure 4 of the main paper. Each row in Tab. corresponds to a point in the PSNR vs. Coverage plot. Beyond the standard PSNR and Coverage metrics shown in the main paper, also report SSIM, LPIPS, and Dice scores for a more comprehensive evaluation. While SSIM and LPIPS have been previously evaluated for BayesRays, introduce the Dice score provide additional insights into the cleanup results.
Dice Score To complement the coverage metric, we propose the Dice for evaluating NeRF cleanup. The Dice score, widely used in segmentation tasks, quantifies the similarity between two by measuring their overlap. In the context of NeRF cleanup, it reflects how effectively a method removes unwanted artifacts. Specifically, it assesses how well a method distinguishes between the intended reconstruction and regions that should remain empty.
meaningful addition
The Dice score offers a nuanced perspective that the coverage metric alone cannot provide. Coverage measures how completely method reconstructs regions visible from the training cameras but does not penalize excessive retention artifacts. inaceurately retain content in unseen areas. For example, shown in Tab. 4 the baseline achieves high coverage score because it does not perform any cleanup. However, Tab, aalso reveals low Dice score for the baseline, highlighting its inability remove artifacts from unseen regions effectively.
contrast, the Dice score penalizes methods that
This additional metric reinforces the importance balancing reconstruction accuracy with artifact removal to achieve high-quality NeRF cleanups.
15

---

Table Full Results:
Comprehensive evaluation metrics for the methods discussed our paper. Each row corresponds to point in the PSNR vs. Coverage graph (Figure 4) from the main paper, providing additional insights into the trade-off' between reconstruction accuracy and artifact removal.
Method
Threshold / X
PSNR
SSIM
LPIPS
Coverage (%)
Dice
Nerfacto (Baseline)
N/A
16.44
0.53
0.45
98.48
0.83
100
17.69
0.62
0.30
87.57
0.87
10-1
17.60
0.60
0.32
89.88
0.88
10-2
17.52
0.58
0.35
92.26
0.89
Ours
10 10-3
17.42
0.57
0.37
94.35
0.90
10-4
17.40
0.56
0.39
95.60
0.90
10-5
17.35
0.56
0.40
96.45
0.90
Nerfbusters
N/A
17.01
0.64
0.27
68.13
0.73
0.1
16.64
0.70
0.19
25.21
0)43
0.2
17.44
0.68
0.20
39.86
0.54
0.3
17.97
0.67
0.23
54.67
0.65
0.4
17.88
0.65
0.26
70.44
0.76
0.5
17.77
0.63
0.28
81.04
0.83
BayesRays
0.6
17.69
0.62
0.30
86.36
0.87
0.7
17.63
0.61
0.32
89.27
0.88
0.8
17.56
0.59
0.34
91.29
0.89
0.9
17.49
0.58
0.36
93.23
0.90
1.0
16.42
0.53
0.45
98.36
0.82
Gaussian Splatting
N/A
15.13
0.50
0.41
95.22
0.89
L2 Regularization
N/A
17.10
0.54
0.52
87.09
0.87
10
14.11
0.48
0.48
78.97
0.73
10
16.35
0.56
0.38
84.16
0.85
10 10-2
17.16
0.58
0.36
89.51
0.88
Ours During Training Phase
10-3
17.43
0.58
0.36
92.42
0.90
10
17.51
0.57
0.37
93.38
0.90
10
17.30
0.56
0.39
95.21
0,91
A.7 Additional Qualitative Results
We present qualitative results additional scenes from the Nerfbusters dataset in Fig. 11 These examples support our claim of achieving balance between effective cleanup and scene preservation.
Furthermore, the qualitative results highlight the limitations of Gaussian Splatting. Notably, it exhibits significant noise in novel views located far from the training cameras. This issue aligns with the quantitative findings, as the excessive noise contributes to the low PSNR scores reported in Tab. 4 These observations underline the importance of robust artifact removal achieving high-quality reconstructions for novel viewpoints.
In addition the static images, attach videos of the Pikachu, Car, and Plant scenes from the Nerfbusters dataset. These videos provide side-by-side comparisons of the Nerfacto baseline and Free Space Prior results. The comparisons clearly illustrate that our method delivers consistent artifact removal across the entire scene, rather than affecting only isolated parts visible in the picked images. This consistency highlights our method's robustness in addressing both local and global cleanup challenges while preserving the scene's 's overall structure and quality.
A.8 Noisy Images Study
As stated in our limitations section, our approach based on the reconstruction loss, which relays on good data. To demonstrate this, we added gaussian noise to the input images of scene, build NeRF and applied our method on the noisy scene. As can seen Fig. 13] the cleanup did work on under-optimized regions, but did not fix the color bias caused by the noisy input images.
16

---

Nerfacto
Free Space Prior
BaysRays
BeysRays
Nerfbusters
Regularization
L2
FSP During Training
Gaussian Splatting
Flowers
Plcnic
Figure 11: Qualitative Cleanup Results: Visualization different cleanup methods applied to the Car, Flowers and Picnic scenes from the Nerfbusters dataset. Each image shows novel view from the evaluation set rendered post-cleanup.
Histogram Cleanup
Histogram of Densities Before Cleanup
Deasity Values
Damaitt
Figure 12: Density Histogram Underwater: Histogram of densities across the Curacao scene after sigmoid-softened, shifted to [0, I]. (Left) Histogram of densities across the before the cleanup process. (Right) Histogram of the densities across the scene after the cleanup process.
A.9 Densities in Complex Medium
As seen in Fig. I our approach works on underwater scenes like Seathru dataset. But the assumption that "There nothing in the unseen area" does not mean densities should be zero. This is because the physics of underwater imaging involve attenuation and back scattering, which means density should not be zero.
We investigate this further by calculating a density histogram for the underwater scene Curacao from the Seathru dataset. See Fig. 12 As be seen, the original density histogram (left) is pushed towards the bi-modal histogram (right) that we find in regular images (cf. see Fig. 6). Because the prior does not match the imaging physics the resulting histogram not bi-modal, leaving enough non-zero densities to handle the image properly, as shown visually by the results on the Seathru dataset.
17

---

Figure 13: Noisy input images study: (Top) Noised input image. (Middle) Original images and the novel view from the Nerfacto baseline. (Bottom) Original images and the novel view after cleanup.
18

---

NeurIPS Paper Checklist
1. Claims
Question: Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and scope?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification:
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the abstract and introduction do not include the claims made in the paper.
The abstract and/or introduction should clearly state the claims made, including the contributions made in the paper and important assumptions and limitations. A No or
NA answer to this question will not perceived well by the reviewers.
The claims made should match theoretical and experimental results, and reflect how much the results
be expected to generalize other settings.
is fine to include aspirational goals as motivation as long is clear that these goals are not attained by the paper.
2. Limitations
Question: Does the paper discuss the limitations of the work performed by the authors?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: Appendix A.8
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper has no limitation while the answer No means that the paper has limitations, but those not discussed in the paper.
The authors are encouraged to create separate "Limitations" section in their paper.
The paper should point out any strong assumptions and how robust the results are to violations of these assumptions (e.g., independence assumptions, noiseless settings, model well-specification. asymptotic approximations only holding locally). The authors should reflect how these assumptions might be violated in practice and what the implications would be.
The authors should reflect on the scope of the claims made, e.g., if the approach was only tested on few datasets or with few runs. In general, empirical results often depend on implicit assumptions, which should be articulated.
The authors should reflect the factors that influence the performance of the approach. For example, facial recognition algorithm may perform poorly when image resolution low images are taken in low lighting. Or speech-to-text system might be used reliably to provide closed captions for online lectures because it fails to handle technical jargon.
The authors should discuss the computational efficiency of the proposed algorithms and how they scale with dataset size.
If applicable, the authors should discuss possible limitations of their approach address problems of privacy and faimess.
While the authors might fear that complete honesty about limitations might be used by reviewers as grounds for rejection, a worse outcome might be that reviewers discover limitations that aren't 't acknowledged in the paper. The authors should use their best judgment and recognize that individual actions in favor of transparency play an impor- tant role in developing norms that preserve the integrity of the community. Reviewers will be specifically instructed to not penalize honesty concerning limitations.
3. Theory assumptions and proofs
Question: For each theoretical result, does the paper provide the full set of assumptions and complete (and correct) proof?
Answer: [NA]
19

---

Justification:
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include theoretical results.
All the theorems, formulas, and proofs in the paper should be numbered and cross- referenced.
All assumptions should be clearly stated referenced in the statement of any theorems.
The proofs can either appear in the main paper or the supplemental material, but they appear in the supplemental material, the authors are encouraged to provide short proof sketch provide intuition.
Inversely, any informal proof provided in the core of the paper should be complemented by formal proofs provided in appendix or supplemental material.
Theorems and Lemmas that the proof relies upon should be properly referenced.
4. Experimental result reproducibility
Question: Does the paper fully disclose all the information needed to reproduce the main ex- perimental results of the paper to the extent that affects the main claims and/or conclusions of the paper (regardless whether the code and data are provided or not)?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: Appendix A.2
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
If the paper includes experiments, a No answer to this question will not be perceived well by the reviewers: Making the paper reproducible is important, regardless of whether the code and data are provided or not.
If the contribution is dataset and/or model, the authors should describe the steps taken to make their results reproducible or verifiable.
Depending on the contribution, reproducibility can be accomplished in various ways. For example, if the contribution is a novel architecture, describing the architecture fully might suffice, or if the contribution is a specific model and empirical evaluation, it may be necessary to either make possible for others to replicate the model with the same dataset, or provide access to the model. In general. releasing code and data is often one good way accomplish this, but reproducibility can also be provided via detailed instructions for how to replicate the results, access to a hosted model (e.g.. in the case of large language model), releasing of a model checkpoint, or other means that are appropriate to the research performed.
While NeurIPS does not require releasing code, the conference does require all submis- sions to provide some reasonable avenue for reproducibility, which may depend on the nature of the contribution. For example
(a) the contribution is primarily a new algorithm, the paper should make clear how to reproduce that algorithm.
(b) the contribution is primarily a new model architecture, the paper should describe the architccture clearly and fully.
(c) If the contribution is new model (e.g., a large language model), then there should either way to access this model for reproducing the results or way to reproduce the model (e.g., with an open-source dataset instructions for how to construct the dataset).
(d) We recognize that reproducibility may be tricky in some cases, in which case authors are welcome to describe the particular way they provide for reprodueibility. the case of closed-source models, may be that access to the model is limited in some way (e.g., to registered users), but it should be possible for other researchers have some path to reproducing or verifying the results.
5. Open access to data and code
Question: Does the paper provide open access to the data and code, with sufficient instruc- tions to faithfully reproduce the main experimental results, as described in supplemental material?
20

---

Answer:
[No]
Justification:
We will provide the code and data preparation and evaluation upon acceptance.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that paper does not include experiments requiring code.
Please see the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (https://nips.c cc/
for more details.
While we encourage the release of code and data, we understand that this might not be possible, "No" is an acceptable answer. Papers cannot be rejected simply for not including code, unless this is central to the contribution (c.g., for new open-source benchmark).
The instructions should contain the exact command and environment needed to run to reproduce the results. See the NeurIPS code and data submission guidelines (https guwdes/ddeeeeee Cooeeeoodeesssseeeeee //nips.com /ttc: ssiniiiiccy for more details.
The authors should provide instructions on data access and preparation, including how to access the raw data, preprocessed data, intermediate data, and generated data, etc.
The authors should provide scripts to reproduce all experimental results for the new proposed method and baselines. If only subset of experiments are reproducible, they should state which ones are omitted from the script and why.
At submission time, to preserve anonymity, the authors should release anonymized versions (if applicable).
Providing as much information as possible supplemental material (appended the paper) is recommended, but including URLs to data and code is permitted.
6. Experimental setting/details
Does the paper specify all the training and test details (c.g., data splits, hyper- parameters, how they were chosen, type of optimizer, etc.) necessary understand the results?
Question:
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: Appendix A.2
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The experimental setting should be presented in the core the paper to a level of detail that is necessary appreciate the results and make sense of them.
The full details can be provided either with the code, appendix, as supplemental material.
7. Experiment statistical significance
Question: Does the paper report error bars suitably and correctly defined or other appropriate information about the statistical significance of the experiments?
Answer: [No]
Justification: Error bars not common in this type of evaluation. We follow the experi- mental protocols established by SOTA papers in this field.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The authors should answer "Yes" if the results are accompanied by error bars, confi- dence intervals, statistical significance tests, least for the experiments that support the main claims of the paper.
The factors of variability that the enror bars are capturing should be clearly stated (for example, train/test split, initialization, random drawing of some parameter, or overall with given experimental conditions).
The method for calculating the error bars should be explained (closed form formula, call to a library function, bootstrap, etc.)
The assumptions made should be given (e.g., Normally distributed errors).
21

---

It should be clear whether the error bar is the standard deviation or the standard error of the mean.
is OK to report 1-sigma error bars, but one should state it. The authors should preferably report a 2-sigma error bar than state that they have 96% CI, if the hypothesis of Normality of errors is not verified.
For asymmetric distributions, the authors should be careful not to show in tables figures symmetric error bars that would yield results that are out range (e.g. negative error rates).
If error bars are reported in tables or plots, The authors should explain the text how they were calculated and reference the corresponding figures tables in the text.
8. Experiments compute resources
For each experiment, does the paper provide sufficient information on the com- puter resources (type of compute workers, memory, time of execution) needed to reproduce the experiments?
Question:
Answer: [Yes]
Justification: Appendix A.2
Tab.
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not include experiments.
The paper should indicate the type of compute workers CPU GPU, internal cluster, or cloud provider, including relevant memory and storage.
The paper should provide the amount of compute required for each of the individual experimental runs as well as estimate the total compute.
The paper should disclose whether the full research project required more compute than the experiments reported in the paper (e.g., preliminary or failed experiments that didn't 't make it into the paper).
9. Code of ethics
Does the research conducted in the paper conform, in every respect, with the NeurIPS Code of Ethics http:///wwra..cccaa/a/////aacaaa
Question:
Answer: [Yes]
Justification:
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the authors have reviewed the NeurIPS Code of Ethics.
If the authors answer No, they should explain the special circumstances that require deviation from the Code of Ethics.
The authors should make sure to preserve anonymity (e.g., there a special consid- eration due to laws or regulations in their jurisdiction).
10. Broader impacts
Question: Does the paper discuss both potential positive societal impacts and negative societal impacts of the work performed?
Answer: [NA]
Justification:
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that there no societal impact of the work performed.
If the authors answer NA or No. they should explain why their work has no socictal impact why the paper does not address societal impact.
Examples of negative societal impacts include potential malicious or unintended uses (e.g., disinformation, generating fake profiles, surveillance), fairness considerations (e.g., deployment of technologies that could make decisions that unfairly impact specific groups), privacy considerations, and security considerations.
22

---

The conference expects that many papers will be foundational research and not tied particular applications, let alone deployments. However, if there is direct path to any negative applications, the authors should point it out. For example, it is legitimate to point out that an improvement in the quality of generative models could be used to generate deepfakes for disinformation. On the other hand, it is not needed to point out that a generic algorithm for optimizing neural networks could enable people to train models that generate Deepfakes faster.
The authors should consider possible harms that could arise when the technology is being used as intended and functioning correctly, harms that could arise when the technology being used as intended but gives incorrect results, and harms following from (intentional or unintentional) misuse of the technology.
If there negative societal impacts, the authors could also discuss possible mitigation strategies (e.g., gated release of models, providing defenses in addition to attacks, mechanisms for monitoring misuse, mechanisms monitor how system learns from feedback over time, improving the efficiency and accessibility of MI..
11. Safeguards
Does the paper describe safeguards that have been put in place for responsible release of data models that have high risk for misuse (e.g., pretrained language models, image generators, or scraped datasets)?
Question:
Answer: [NA]
Justification:
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper poses such risks.
Released models that have high risk for misuse or dual-use should be released with necessary safeguards to allow for controlled use of the model, for example by requiring that users adhere usage guidelines or restrictions to access the model or implementing safety filters.
Datasets that have been scraped from the Internet could pose safety risks. The authors should describe how they avoided releasing unsafe images.
We recognize that providing effective safeguards is challenging, and many papers do not require this, but we encourage authors to take this into account and make best faith effort.
12. Lieenses for existing assets
Question: Are the creators or original owners of assets (e.g., code, data, models), used in the paper. properly credited and are the license and terms of use explicitly mentioned and properly respected?
Answer: [Yes]
Justification:
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does existing assets.
The authors should cite the original paper that produced the code package or dataset.
The authors should state which version of the asset is used and, if possible, include URL.
The name of the license (c.g., CC-BY 4.0) should be included for each asset.
For scraped data from a particular source (c.g., website), the copyright and terms of service of that source should be provided.
If assets are released, the license, copyright information, and terms of use in the package should be provided. For popular datasets, paperswi thcode. com com/datasets has curated licenses for some datasets. Their licensing guide can help determine the license of dataset.
For existing datasets that are re-packaged, both the original license and the license of the derived asset (if it has changed) should be provided.
23

---

If this information is not available online, the authors are encouraged to reach out to the asset's creators.
13. New assets
Question: Are new assets introduced in the paper well documented and is the documentation provided alongside the assets?
Answer: [NA]
Justification:
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not release new assets.
Researchers should communicate the details of the dataset/code/mmoel as part of their submissions via structured templates. This includes details about training, license, limitations, etc.
The paper should discuss whether and how consent obtained from people whose asset is used.
At submission time, remember to anonymize your assets (if applicable). You can either create an anonymized URL or include an anonymized zip file.
14. Crowdsourcing and research with human subjects
Question: For crowdsourcing experiments and research with human subjects, does the paper include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable, as well details about compensation (if any)?
Answer: [NA]
Justification:
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsoureing nor research with human subjects.
Including this information in the supplemental material is fine, but if the main contribu- tion of the paper involves human subjects, then as much detail as possible should be included the main paper.
According the NeurIPS Code of Ethics, workers involved in data collection, curation, or other labor should be paid at least the minimum wage in the country of the data collector.
15. Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects
Question:
Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or institution) were obtained?
Answer: [NA]
Justification:
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects.
Depending the country in which research is conducted, IRB approval (or equivalent) may be required for any human subjects research. If you obtained IRB approval, you should clearly state this in the paper.
We recognize that the procedures for this may vary significantly between institutions and locations, and expect authors to adhere to the NeurlPS Code of Ethics and the guidelines for their institution.
For initial submissions, do not include any information that would break anonymity (if applicable), such the institution conducting the review.
16. Declaration of LLM usage

---

Does the paper describe the usage of LLMs if it is important, original, or non-standard component of the core methods this research? Note that if the LLM used only for writing, editing, or formatting purposes and does not impact the core methodology, scientific rigorousness, or originality of the research, declaration is not required.
Question:
Answer: [NA]
Justification:
Guidelines:
The answer NA means that the core method development in this research does not involve LLMs any important, original, non-standard components.
Please refer to our LLM policy for what should or should not be described.
25


Reviews:
[{"review_id": "AUagHiwlOZ", "reviewer": "Reviewer_yNLy", "summary": "The authors propose a method to reduce the density of sampled points in 3D space, thereby eliminating artifacts and improving the quality of novel view synthesis in NeRF.", "questions": "See Weaknesses.", "limitations": "Yes.", "rating": 4, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": 3, "clarity": 2, "significance": 3, "originality": 3, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "**Strengths:**\n\nThe authors propose a simple and effective method that reduces the density of sampled points in 3D space to eliminate artifacts.\n\n**Weaknesses:**\n\n1. It should be clarified whether the training time reported in Table 1 refers to training from scratch or fine-tuning. If it corresponds to fine-tuning, the number of fine-tuning iterations should be specified, and an ablation study on the number of fine-tuning iterations should be provided.\n2. The authors emphasize that the proposed method has faster inference speed, but there are no optimizations to the inference process presented in the paper. I am puzzled as to how the authors arrived at this conclusion.\n3. Is the hyperparameter λ related to the number of images in a scene? For example, if one scene contains 10 images and another contains 100, the sampling (or optimization) frequency would differ across scenes. However, the *FSP* loss reduces the density in space at a fixed frequency, which could lead to different trade-offs in different scenes.\n4. I believe the number of sampling points is also an important hyperparameter, but the paper lacks an ablation study on this aspect.\n5. The organization of the experimental section is not clear enough. Some important experimental details should be included in the main text, such as the ablation study of the hyperparameter λ and the comparison between fine-tuning and training from scratch.", "was_revised": true, "final_justification": "After reviewing all reviewers’ comments and the authors’ responses, I believe all of my concerns have been addressed, and I will raise my score to 4.", "rebuttal": "We thank the reviewer for the feedback, we encourage the reviewer to view the **HTML visualization video** in the supplementary as one of the reviewers mentioned it as a helpful tool to understand the good results. Below are our clarifications and answers:\n\n## Training Time Clarification\n\nThe training time refers to the \"**cleanup phase**\" and we will clarify this in the paper. **Each method uses a fundamentally different training approach**: our method performs fine-tuning using the Free Space Prior and Reconstruction Losses, Nerfbusters fine-tunes with a large pre-trained 3D diffusion model, while BayesRays collects Hessian data for uncertainty estimation. The details about each method's distinct training phase are in lines 274-277:\n\n> *\"For training time, Nerfbusters employs a pre-trained 3D diffusion model to fine-tune NeRF per scene, resulting in a high training time of approximately 20 minutes per scene. BayesRays is faster, taking 37 seconds to gather data for Hessian computation, while our approach is the fastest, completing cleanup training in just 25 seconds.\"*\n\nAs for the number of iterations and samples, it is stated in the implementation details (Lines 455-456), we will clarify that in the runtime section too:\n\n> *\"In our method, density optimization was achieved with 1,000 iterations using $2^{17}$ randomly sampled points across the 3D scene space.\"*\n\n## Inference Speed Advantage\n\nThe reviewer asked how we achieve faster inference without optimizations to the inference process. The key difference lies in the **inference architecture**: BayesRays requires additional uncertainty thresholding computations during rendering, resulting in 506ms per frame, while our method uses only the fine-tuned NeRF without any additional overhead, achieving 205ms per frame on the same hardware - 2.5× faster than BayesRays, which is the only SOTA method achieving comparable cleanup quality.\n\n## Hyperparameter $\\\\lambda$ Robustness\n\nWe understand your concern regarding different scenes with different numbers of images. We claim that the method mechanism is more important than the specific $\\\\lambda$ parameter. To clarify, **all visualizations in the paper were generated with $\\\\lambda=0.1$** across different NeRF methods and scene characteristics, as mentioned in line 178.\n\nThis robustness can be explained by two key mechanisms:\n\n1. **Fixed sampling strategy**: The number of samples and number of rays are fixed in each iteration, regardless of the number of images in the scene. This ensures consistent optimization behavior across different scene configurations.\n\n2. **Balanced loss interaction**: Our \"Balancing Cleanup and Scene Integrity\" section explains the 3 regions of interaction between the losses:\n   - **Unseen regions**: Only FSP loss acts, pushing densities to zero\n   - **Empty seen regions**: Both losses agree on zero density\n   - **Surface regions**: NeRF reconstruction rays provide strong, consistent supervision by repeatedly sampling the same locations, while the sparse FSP loss only occasionally samples these areas and therefore cannot overpower the reconstruction signal\n\nYou can observe Figure 4 to see how density in empty regions is cleaned while preserving surface structure through this balanced interaction.\n\nMoreover, our ablation study demonstrates robust performance across a very large range of $\\\\lambda$ values (Appendix A.5 - Choosing $\\\\lambda$):\n\n> *\"Our method is robust to a wide range of $\\\\lambda$ values as can be seen in Table 2, $\\\\lambda \\\\in [10^{-5}, 1]$ yields both high PSNR (17.35–17.69) and high coverage (87.57%–96.45%). This robustness stems from our method's design, which optimizes regions where the reconstruction loss is inactive.\"*\n\n## The Organization of the Experimental Section\n\nThank you for this feedback, which helps us improve the paper. We will move the ablation study of hyperparameter $\\\\lambda$ and the comparison between fine-tuning and training from scratch to the main text."}, {"review_id": "1ySdAb1drS", "reviewer": "Reviewer_XP5a", "summary": "This work focuses on the problem of cleaning floaters from NeRF frameworks post single scene optimization. The proposed method introduces a post training procedure which extend the standard NeRF photometric loss with a empty space constraint regularization term that assumes the density should be zero everywhere. The effect intended affect this loss has is to ensure that the density in free space goes to zero, and to preserve existing information about the scene via ray sampling. Experiments show the approach to post clean state-of-the-art NeRF methods, as well as comparison with other works that solve the same problem.", "questions": "- Would be good if authors can mention if lambda was hand-chosen for different scenes. Given the proposed method and diversity in scenes, a best choice of lambda per scene would almost be expected.", "limitations": "See weaknesses", "rating": 4, "confidence": 2, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": 2, "clarity": 2, "significance": 2, "originality": 2, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "Strength:\n- Runtime for the proposed approach is far superior than competing baselines. Making it applicable and a good \n- Method is simple and intuitive. \n\nWeaknesses:\n- The assumption that \"there is nothing in unseen regions\" is quite strong and may not hold in many real scenarios. Given that this assumption might break in non-object centric scenes, it would be better if explored properly.\n- The regularization term mathematically, has adverse affects with the scene rays which have actual density. This may degrade the results on the actual object as seen by the PSNR results in Figure 5. \n- Limited novelty. \n\nOverall, the method could be useful to the community provided good trade-offs between speed and performance shown. It is however important to be more thorough with the experiments given the strong assumption this regularizer applies.", "was_revised": true, "final_justification": "My main concern was regarding the methodology and the core assumptions made and how those affect the generality and performance in different conditions. Reading the other reviews and discussions it looks similar concerns were raised.\nDuring the rebuttal period the authors showcased further experiments that highlighted the robustness of the approach in different conditions while preserving/improving geometry and fidelity of base results.\nI encourage the authors to improve on the manuscript, specifically the experiment section to address such concerns.", "rebuttal": "We thank the reviewer for the feedback, we encourage the reviewer to view the **HTML visualization video** in the supplementary as one of the reviewers mentioned it as a helpful tool to understand the good results. Below are our clarifications and answers:\n\n## \"Nothing in Unseen Regions\" Assumption\n\nThis assumption is not strong, but rather **fundamental to NeRF reconstruction**. If training images do not cover an area, **it cannot be meaningfully reconstructed** - this is a core limitation of photometric optimization. Our contribution is in enforcing zero density in these regions instead of allowing arbitrary noise accumulation.\n\nRegarding the concern about \"non-object centric scenes\", we would like to highlight that our experimental evidence demonstrates effectiveness across **many non-object-centric scenes** throughout our paper. Notably, the **Nerfbusters dataset itself is not object-centric**. Our method performs well on complex indoor and outdoor scenes with multiple objects, backgrounds, and varied scene compositions, which we believe addresses the concern about applicability to non-object-centric scenarios. \n\nAdditionally, our approach generalizes to many NeRF variants and scenarios such as underwater, semantic, and language-embedded NeRFs as shown in Figure 1, which distinguishes our method from other state-of-the-art cleanup approaches.\n\n## The Regularization Term\n\nWe believe there may be a misreading of Figure 5: **increasing $\\\\lambda$ actually improves PSNR** (while decreasing coverage as expected). This relationship can be verified in Table 2 of the supplementary material.\n\nIt is true that the regularization term interacts with scene rays, but we discuss this extensively in the paper. **This is not a limitation, but the core mechanism of our method**.\n\nOur \"**Balancing Cleanup and Scene Integrity**\" section (line 157) explains the 3 regions of interaction between the losses:\n- **Unseen regions**: Only FSP loss acts, pushing densities to zero\n- **Empty seen regions**: Both losses agree on zero density\n- **Surface regions**: NeRF reconstruction rays provide strong, consistent supervision by repeatedly sampling the same locations, while the sparse FSP loss only occasionally samples these areas and therefore cannot overpower the reconstruction signal\n\nThese are illustrated in Figure 4, which shows how density in empty regions is cleaned while preserving surface structure.\n\n## Universal $\\\\lambda$ Parameter\n\n**$\\\\lambda$ is not hand-chosen for different scenes** as mentioned in line 178. **All visualizations in the paper were generated with $\\\\lambda=0.1$** across different NeRF methods and scene characteristics, demonstrating universal applicability.\n\nOur extensive ablation study (Appendix A.5) shows that our method's mechanism is more important than precise $\\\\lambda$ tuning:\n\n> *\"Our method is robust to a wide range of $\\\\lambda$ values as can be seen in Table 2, $\\\\lambda \\\\in [10^{-5}, 1]$ yields both high PSNR (17.35–17.69) and high coverage (87.57%–96.45%). This robustness stems from our method's design, which optimizes regions where the reconstruction loss is inactive.\"*"}, {"review_id": "ylbKiEyvgF", "reviewer": "Reviewer_fGuQ", "summary": "The paper focuses on removing unwanted floaters in NeRF, which appear in areas not detected during training. The authors propose a simple yet very effective way to supervise them using a Free Space Prior, if a region is not supposed to have any density, it should be zero.\nThey are faster and less costly compared to current SOTA methods.", "questions": "I don’t have any questions, my only concern is that I would like to see the method rival BayesRays in terms of PSNR while winning in coverage areas. I say this again because I imagine the current results are due to the Free Space Prior loss affecting all 3d points in the same way.\n\nI’m really undecided between a 3 and a 4, mainly because of the limited novelty. I’m giving it a 4 just because the results show that it works really well, and I really liked the HTML visualization video used to show that.", "limitations": "Yes", "rating": 4, "confidence": 3, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": 3, "clarity": 4, "significance": 3, "originality": 1, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "The method shows great qualitative results; I really like the video HTML visualization.\nThe formulation is simple, makes sense, and it works.\nThe experiments, both quantitative and qualitative, are well done.\n\nThe only weakness I would mention is the novelty, since the contribution is only a loss applied post hoc (but since the post hoc step is fast, it’s not a problem).\n\nI personally don’t like the fact that no reasoning is provided over the points that could be detected as “correct” and left untouched. This could strengthen the method and help it achieve better photometric results. Since the novelty is limited, there was room to explore this.\nThis would help avoid having the Free Space Prior loss negatively affect regions that are already well reconstructed.", "was_revised": true, "final_justification": "Before, I said I was undecided between a 3 and a 4. Now, given all the new experiments and the hard work provided in the rebuttal, I am confident in my 4, now leaning more towards a 4+ than not.", "rebuttal": "We thank the reviewer for the positive assessment and particularly appreciate the recognition of our visualization and experimental quality. Below are our clarifications and answers:\n\n## Addressing Novelty Concerns\n\nWhile our core contribution is indeed a simple post-hoc loss function, we believe this simplicity is a **strength rather than a limitation**. The method's elegance lies in achieving SOTA results through a principled, theoretically grounded approach that generalizes across diverse NeRF architectures and datasets without requiring architectural modifications or learned priors.\n\n## Selective Point Treatment\n\nThe reviewer's suggestion about reasoning over \"correct\" points is insightful and represents an interesting direction for future work. While our current approach takes a simpler strategy, our **\"Balancing Cleanup and Scene Integrity\"** mechanism (line 157) naturally achieves similar outcomes through the interaction between losses. This creates three distinct regions of interaction between the losses:\n\n1. **Unseen regions**: Only FSP loss acts, pushing densities to zero\n2. **Empty seen regions**: Both losses agree on zero density\n3. **Surface regions**: NeRF reconstruction rays provide strong, consistent supervision by repeatedly sampling the same locations, while the sparse FSP loss only occasionally samples these areas and therefore cannot overpower the reconstruction signal\n\nYou can observe Figure 4 to see how density in empty regions is cleaned while preserving surface structure through this natural partitioning that allows our method to preserve well-reconstructed regions while cleaning artifacts."}, {"review_id": "yuip7e9Iiv", "reviewer": "Reviewer_pWFp", "summary": "This paper introduces a Free-Space Prior as a fast, post-hoc method to eliminate floaters in NeRF by enforcing zero density in unseen regions through regularization. The approach improves efficiency without adding significant training or memory overhead and generalizes well across architectures and datasets.", "questions": "1) What causes the Free-Space Prior to yield worse SSIM and LPIPS values, indicating lower performance on perceptual metrics?  \n2) How does the Free-Space Prior affect fine structure reconstruction? Does it impact surface reconstruction accuracy?  \n3) What is the best approach for selecting hyperparameters across different scenes?", "limitations": "yes", "rating": 4, "confidence": 4, "soundness": null, "presentation": null, "contribution": null, "strengths": "", "weaknesses": "", "quality": 2, "clarity": 3, "significance": 3, "originality": 3, "strengths_and_weaknesses": "**Strengths:**\n\n- The method is simple and has the potential to be applied to various NeRF architectures without additional computational overhead.\n\n**Weaknesses:**\n\n- While PSNR results are promising, SSIM and LPIPS metrics lag significantly behind baseline methods.  \n\n- The uniform sampling in the free-space loss is overly aggressive, often treating all regions equally and potentially erasing fine details, especially near object boundaries or thin structures. This can lead to loss of important scene content and over-smoothing, particularly in scenes with intricate geometry. The paper does not analyze the extent of this effect or suggest ways to mitigate it.\n\n- The new loss function is highly dependent on careful tuning of the weighting factor \\lambda, which determines the balance between artifact removal and scene fidelity. Without detailed analysis or tuning guidelines, the method may not generalize well, and users may struggle to achieve good results out of the box. This lack of robustness and practical instructions undermines the usability of the approach for varied datasets and scene types.  The proposed method also demonstrates a smaller trade-off region. As shown in Figure 5; in comparison, BayesRay offers a wider trade-off region, providing greater flexibility.", "was_revised": true, "final_justification": "I’m also hesitant between a 3 and a 4. During the rebuttal, the authors effectively demonstrated that their free-space loss has a marginal—almost negligible—impact on fine-grained geometry or surface reconstruction while successfully eliminating floaters. While the method does not outperform BayesRay, I value its simplicity and the potential inspiration it offers for applying 3DGS or NeRF in real-world scenarios. Additionally, I would suggest that refining the sampling strategy may further boost its performance and enhance its overall appeal.", "rebuttal": "We thank the reviewer for the feedback, we encourage the reviewer to view the **HTML visualization video** in the supplementary as one of the reviewers mentioned it as a helpful tool to understand the good results. Below are our clarifications and answers:\n\n## SSIM and LPIPS Performance\n\nWe appreciate the reviewer's attention to the SSIM and LPIPS metrics. We understand the confusion may arise from comparing methods at different coverage levels. We would like to clarify that **our method achieves comparable performance to baseline methods** when compared at equivalent coverage levels. We will enhance this clarification in the paper to make the comparison clearer.\n\n**Our method achieves virtually identical SSIM and LPIPS performance to BayesRays at equivalent coverage levels, while being 2.5× faster in inference.**\n\nWhen comparing at equivalent coverage levels (refer to Table 2 in supplemental - Full Results):\n\n**Coverage ~92%-93%:**\n\n| Method | Threshold / $\\\\lambda$ | PSNR | SSIM | LPIPS | Coverage (%) | Dice |\n|--------|------------------------|------|------|-------|--------------|------|\n| Ours | 0.01 | 17.52 | 0.58 | 0.35 | 92.26 | 0.89 |\n| BayesRays | 0.9 | 17.49 | 0.58 | 0.36 | 93.23 | 0.9 |\n\n**Coverage ~89%-90%:**\n\n| Method | Threshold / $\\\\lambda$ | PSNR | SSIM | LPIPS | Coverage (%) | Dice |\n|--------|------------------------|------|------|-------|--------------|------|\n| Ours | 0.1 | 17.60 | 0.60 | 0.32 | 89.88 | 0.88 |\n| BayesRays | 0.7 | 17.63 | 0.61 | 0.32 | 89.27 | 0.88 |\n\n\n## Uniform Sampling Effectiveness\n\nWe respectfully disagree with the assessment that uniform sampling is overly aggressive. Our results demonstrate that we achieve state-of-the-art performance in PSNR, SSIM, and LPIPS while maintaining high coverage. Both qualitative and quantitative results support the effectiveness of our approach without evidence of over-smoothing or detail loss.\n\n## The Regularization Term (Choosing $\\\\lambda$)\n\nWe would like to address the concern about $\\\\lambda$ tuning. Our method demonstrates robustness across hyperparameter choices rather than requiring careful tuning. All visualizations in the paper were generated with $\\\\lambda=0.1$ across different NeRF methods and scene characteristics, demonstrating universal applicability.\n\nOur extensive ablation study (Appendix A.5) shows that our method's mechanism is more important than precise $\\\\lambda$ tuning:\n\n> *\"Our method is robust to a wide range of $\\\\lambda$ values as can be seen in Table 2, $\\\\lambda \\\\in [10^{-5}, 1]$ yields both high PSNR (17.35–17.69) and high coverage (87.57%–96.45%). This robustness stems from our method's design, which optimizes regions where the reconstruction loss is inactive.\"*\n\nOur \"**Balancing Cleanup and Scene Integrity**\" section (line 157) explains the 3 regions of interaction between the losses:\n\n- **Unseen regions**: Only FSP loss acts, pushing densities to zero\n- **Empty seen regions**: Both losses agree on zero density  \n- **Surface regions**: NeRF reconstruction rays provide strong, consistent supervision by repeatedly sampling the same locations, while the sparse FSP loss only occasionally samples these areas and therefore cannot overpower the reconstruction signal\n\nYou can observe Figure 4 to see how density in empty regions is cleaned while preserving surface structure.\n\n## Trade-off Analysis\n\nWhile BayesRays offers a wider PSNR-Coverage range, this can be misleading. As shown in Figure 5 and Figure 3 and discussed in lines 250-253:\n\n> *\"Striking a balance between PSNR and coverage is crucial, as high PSNR with low coverage can be misleading. For instance, as shown in Fig. 5, BayesRays at a 0.3 threshold achieves the highest PSNR but suffers from low coverage, leading to noticeable gaps in the reconstructed scene (Fig. 3) that compromise overall image quality.\"*\n\nOur method maintains both high PSNR and coverage in the **practical operating range**.\n\n## Responses to Specific Questions\n\n**Q: What causes the Free-Space Prior to yield worse SSIM and LPIPS values, indicating lower performance on perceptual metrics?**\n\nA: As demonstrated above, our method does not yield worse values when compared at equivalent coverage levels.\n\n**Q: How does the Free-Space Prior affect fine structure reconstruction? Does it impact surface reconstruction accuracy?**\n\nA: Our results indicate no negative impact on fine structure reconstruction. Figure 4 demonstrates that wall density is well-preserved, and surface reconstruction remains accurate. Both qualitative and quantitative results support maintained reconstruction quality.\n\n**Q: What is the best approach for selecting hyperparameters across different scenes?**\n\nA: We recommend using $\\\\lambda=0.1$ universally. Our robustness analysis (Appendix A.5) shows this works well across diverse scenes, with the method's core mechanism being more important than precise tuning."}]

Author rebuttal:

Meta-review: This paper introduces a fast, post-hoc cleanup method for NeRF that effectively removes floaters. The proposed method incorporates several new ideas and advantages, including the use of a Maximum-a-Posteriori (MAP) approach with a simple global prior, explicit optimization in unseen regions, and improved efficiency in both computation and memory usage.

The paper received consistent final ratings of "borderline accept" from all reviewers.. 

The initial reviews were mostly negative, as the reviewers expressed concerns about generalizability, the core assumption of the method, and possible degradation of fine geometric details. In particular, the reviewers raised questions about how to avoid unintentionally changing parts of the scene due to the loss and requested to verify that the pre- and post-cleanup geometry does not degrade.

In response to these concerns, the authors conducted extensive experiments during their rebuttal and the subsequent post-rebuttal discussion. As a result, all reviewers developed a positive impression of the paper, appreciating its simplicity and effective results. After reviewing the comments and discussions, the area chair concurs with the reviewers' assessments and recommends accepting the paper.
Decision: Accept (poster)