0:00 / 0:00

Test-time Baking for Efficient Rendering of Decoder-only View Synthesis Models

1NVIDIA2National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University *Work done during an internship at NVIDIA
NeurIPS 2026 · Spotlight

TL;DR

Test-time Baking (TTB) turns cross-view attention layers into fixed-size MLP layers at test time, each fit like a light field in latent space. Rendering then needs no 3D representation and costs the same at any number of input views, at the quality of the KV-cache model it starts from.

Abstract

Decoder-only Large View Synthesis Models (LVSMs) with KV-cache have recently achieved state-of-the-art quality by regressing novel views from neural networks without reconstructing 3D geometry, while Test-Time Training (TTT) layers save computation but sacrifice quality. We propose Test-Time Baking (TTB), a strategy that learns to bake global scene information from cross-view attention into a lightweight MLP, enabling fast and high-fidelity novel-view decoding. The first key is to repurpose the fast-weight MLP of TTT to learn the cross-view attention mapping explicitly from its input-output pairs, rather than replacing attention entirely, achieving the same rendering efficiency as TTT while delivering substantially higher quality. The second key addresses a modality misalignment between context prefilling and novel-view rendering: we disentangle context tokens into camera-only context rendering tokens to serve as TTB input, and context ground-truth tokens with image content to serve as the TTB mapping target, ensuring the baked MLPs are relieved of the modality generalization challenge between context and novel-view processing. Our method achieves up to 23× rendering speedup with quality on par with the state of the art across several benchmarks.

Novel view synthesis without a 3D model

TTB takes 16 to 64 posed photos of a scene and renders it from new viewpoints at 960p. No 3D model is built in between: every frame comes from the baked MLP layers alone. Switch between 16, 32 and 64 views to see detail sharpen while the frame rate stays at 23 fps.

Input · 16 of 64 views
Output

Live demo

The Hugging Face Space runs the whole pipeline on one GPU: upload 16–128 photos or a short video, π³ estimates the poses, TTB bakes the scene, and the viewer streams freshly rendered frames as you move. The network renders each frame on the GPU.

Motivation

Large view synthesis models, which render novel views without an explicit 3D representation, have caught up with per-scene optimization. Given 64 photos of a DL3DV scene and one minute, a KV-cache model (DVSM) reaches 31.1 dB. 3D Gaussian Splatting reaches 27.3 dB from the same 64 photos, and 30.5 dB when optimized on about 300.

DL3DV · 140 scenes · 960p
Method Input views Time ↓ PSNR ↑ SSIM ↑ LPIPS ↓ FPS ↑
Per-scene optimization (explicit 3D Gaussians)
3DGS 64 >600 s 27.25 0.877 0.193 >50
3DGS ~300 >600 s 30.54 0.929 0.147 >50
Large view synthesis model (no explicit 3D representation)
KV-cache DVSM 64 60 s 31.11 0.920 0.104 1

Why the KV-cache slows down

A large view synthesis model reconstructs a scene once, then renders many novel views from that state. The state is not a 3D model: a KV-cache model stores the scene as the keys and values of every input token, and every frame attends to all of it, so each added photo makes every frame slower. TTB instead bakes the scene into fast weights: one small MLP per block, written at test time. Their size is fixed, so more photos change what the weights hold, not how many there are.

Render speed and scene state size at 960p as the number of input views grows

Speed measured on one A100 GPU.

Render speed 0 fps 10 fps 20 fps 30 fps 21 16 11 6.7 3.8 2.0 1.0 KV-cache TTB fast weights over 23× faster at V = 64 Scene state size 0 GB 10 GB 20 GB 30 GB 1248163264 number of input views V 0.4 0.8 1.7 3.4 6.7 13 27 KV-cache 85× smaller at V = 64 TTB fast weights

Real-time comparison

Both panels fly the same camera path in real time, and each shows the newest frame its model has finished. At 64 views the KV-cache finishes about one frame per second and TTB 23; at 16 views the KV-cache reaches 4 and TTB stays at 23. The images are nearly the same (under 1 dB apart on DL3DV), because TTB starts from the KV-cache model and keeps its cross-view attention for reconstruction.

KV-cache
1 fps
TTB
23 fps

Method

Baking attention into fast weights

TTB builds on Test-Time Training (TTT) layers, which replace attention with a small MLP and train it on the input views at test time. TTT asks the MLP to map each token's key to its own value. TTB keeps cross-view attention running during reconstruction and asks the MLP to reproduce the attention output instead. Once the MLP is trained the KV-cache is dropped, so rendering costs exactly what TTT costs, while the weights hold what attention gathered from all views.

TTT (LaCT)
θ←θ−η ∇θ L(fθ(WkX),  WvX)\theta \leftarrow \theta - \eta\,\nabla_{\theta}\,\mathcal{L}\big(f_{\theta}(W_k X),\; W_v X\big)

The target is a linear projection of the input tokens.

TTB (ours)
θ←θ−η ∇θ L(fθ(WkX),  CrossAttn(X∗))\theta \leftarrow \theta - \eta\,\nabla_{\theta}\,\mathcal{L}\big(f_{\theta}(W_k X),\; \textcolor{#4f7d00}{\mathrm{CrossAttn}(X^{*})}\big)

The target is the cross-view attention output, which already aggregates all context views.

Context pairing

One mismatch remains. During reconstruction the MLP sees tokens that carry image and pose; at render time it is queried with pose only. TTB therefore gives every context view two tokens: a pose-only rendering token that goes into the MLP, and a ground-truth token with the image that feeds the attention target. The MLP is trained on the same kind of input it is later asked about.

The plots under each variant compare reconstruction and rendering tokens at blocks 1, 4 and 7. Only full TTB mixes the two from the first block; the other two keep them apart until late in the network.

Three variants of the inner-loop optimisation and t-SNE plots of their token features
Three ways to train the fast-weight MLP: (a) TTT, (b) TTB without context pairing, (c) full TTB.
X0(ctx-gt)=LN(PE(ray)(P,K)+PE(rgb)(I)),X0(ctx-rend)=LN(PE(ray)(P,K))X^{(\text{ctx-gt})}_0 = \mathrm{LN}\big(\mathrm{PE}^{(\text{ray})}(P, K) + \mathrm{PE}^{(\text{rgb})}(I)\big), \qquad X^{(\text{ctx-rend})}_0 = \mathrm{LN}\big(\mathrm{PE}^{(\text{ray})}(P, K)\big)

Each TTB layer bakes the map X(ctx-rend)↦CrossAttn(X(ctx-gt))X^{(\text{ctx-rend})} \mapsto \mathrm{CrossAttn}(X^{(\text{ctx-gt})}) and shares the baked MLP with the novel-view tokens, so both stages see the same modality. Reconstruction handles twice the tokens; rendering cost is unchanged.

TTB pipeline: intra-view attention, FFN, test-time baking layer and FFN, repeated L times
Pipeline. Each block: intra-view attention, FFN, TTB layer, FFN. Reconstruction bakes the fast-weight MLP once per scene; rendering retrieves scene information from it in O(1)O(1). The rendering loss back-propagates through the baking, so training is end to end.

Benchmarks

We evaluate on the 140 held-out DL3DV scenes at 960p with 16, 32 and 64 input views. TTB renders every setting at 23 fps, up to 23× faster than the KV-cache model it starts from (DVSM in the table) and 2.3× faster than LaCT, within 1 dB of the KV-cache's quality. With local-duplicate inference, which keeps one copy of the fast weights per 16 views, it passes the KV-cache at 64 views (31.33 vs 31.11 dB). The cost is paid once, at reconstruction: 65 s for 64 views, against 60 s for the KV-cache and 7.3 s for LaCT.

Quality versus rendering speed on DL3DV, 960p

Larger markers: more input views (16, 32, 64). Hollow: TTB with local-duplicate inference.

222426283032 PSNR ↑ 141023 fps ↑ (log) LVSM LaCT (TTT) KV-cache (DVSM) TTB (ours) 23× faster
DL3DV · 960p
Method PSNR ↑ SSIM ↑ LPIPS ↓ Recon ↓ FPS ↑
3DGS ToG'23 26.43 0.854 0.167 >600 s >50
LongLRM ICCV'25 24.77 0.804 0.239 3 s >50
LongLRM++ arXiv'25 27.30 0.869 0.161 16 s 14
tttLRM CVPR'26 25.95 0.844 0.195 15 s –
LVSM ICLR'25 21.96 0.678 0.364 59 s 20
LaCT ICLR'26 28.30 0.857 0.169 7.3 s 10
DVSM arXiv'26 31.11 0.920 0.104 60 s 1
TTB-- 29.29 0.882 0.144 7.5 s 23
TTB 30.20 0.897 0.131 65 s 23
TTB (duplicate) 31.33 0.919 0.108 65 s 23

140 held-out DL3DV scenes. Recon: per-scene reconstruction time.

TTB-- uses a linear-projection target instead of attention, so reconstruction stays linear in the number of views; it matches LaCT's quality with fewer parameters and faster rendering.

Zero-shot generalization

TTB was trained on DL3DV only. Given 64 photos of scenes from Mip-NeRF 360, Free and Hike, it renders at the same 23 fps and stays close to the KV-cache model in quality. Hover a scene to play it.

MethodMip-NeRF 360 PSNR ↑SSIM ↑LPIPS ↓Free PSNR ↑SSIM ↑LPIPS ↓Hike PSNR ↑SSIM ↑LPIPS ↓Recon ↓FPS ↑
LVSM20.070.4590.55920.270.5170.44418.600.4330.50259 s20
LaCT23.010.5570.43524.610.6800.26522.390.6480.3057.3 s10
DVSM24.760.6600.33725.570.7560.20523.100.6970.26260 s1
TTB--23.930.5970.39725.280.7080.25322.530.6600.3007.5 s23
TTB24.490.6240.37526.050.7440.22523.770.7070.25965 s23
TTB (duplicate)25.050.6670.34126.820.8000.18725.370.7820.19565 s23

64 input views at 960p.

Ablation

Three additive changes turn a TTT replacement into TTB: context pairing, an MSE inner loop with three steps, and the cross-view attention target. Together they close the gap to the KV-cache model at TTT's rendering speed.

PSNR on DL3DV, 32 input views, small training setup
KV-cache 24.68 dB 23.12 23.78 24.22 24.84 TTT (LaCT) + context pairing + MSE, T = 3 + attention target
Inner-loop and layer-design ablations
FrameworkTLossPSNR ↑SSIM ↑LPIPS ↓
TTT1dot-prod23.120.7040.286
TTT3MSE23.390.7150.277
TTB--1dot-prod23.780.7280.264
TTB--2MSE24.160.7440.251
TTB--3MSE24.220.7470.248
TTB--5MSE24.290.7510.246

MSE beats the dot-product loss for both TTT and TTB--; more inner-loop steps give diminishing gains, and T=3T = 3 is the sweet spot.

FeedbackResidualPSNR ↑SSIM ↑LPIPS ↓
✗✗24.320.7480.243
✗✓24.750.7640.233
✓✗24.760.7640.231
✓✓24.840.7680.230

Residual learning and feedback each add about +0.4 dB; together +0.5 dB.

Citation

@article{lin2026ttb,
title = {TTB: Test-time Baking for Efficient Rendering of Decoder-only View Synthesis Models},
author = {Lin, Chin-Yang and Hachiuma, Ryo and Choe, Jaesung and Chen, Min-Hung and Wang, Yu-Chiang Frank and Lin, Yen-Yu and Chiu, Wei-Chen and Liu, Yu-Lun and Sun, Cheng},
journal = {arXiv preprint arXiv:2611.17331},
year = {2026}
}

References

  1. Test-Time Training Done Right (LaCT). ICLR 2026. arXiv:2505.23884
  2. DVSM: Decoder-only View Synthesis Model Done Right. arXiv 2026. arXiv:2605.29891