GSpaRC: Gaussian Splatting for
Real-time Reconstruction of RF Channels

In a static narrowband propagation environment, the physical channel is characterized by a finite set of multipath coefficients $\{a_{i},\tau_{i}\}$, where $a_{i}$ and $\tau_{i}$ denote the complex gain and delay of the $i$th path. These parameters uniquely determine the baseband-equivalent impulse response

which fully specifies how the transmitted waveform is filtered by the propagation medium. The corresponding continuous-time input–output relation is the LTI convolution $y_{b}(t)=(h_{b}*x_{b})(t)$.

Sampling this model at the symbol rate yields a discrete-time convolution with tap values $\{h[\ell]\}$ that capture the resolvable multipath delays, along with noise samples $w[m]$ obtained from filtered AWGN. In a SIMO system with $N_{r}$ antennas, each element observes the same symbol sequence but through a different discrete-time impulse response. Under the narrowband (frequency-flat) assumption appropriate for a single OFDM subcarrier, each impulse response collapses to a single complex gain $h_{r}$, so the per-antenna model is

where $h_{r}$ is the per-antenna channel coefficient formed by coherent combination of the multipath components at that element [11].

Gaussian Splatting (GS) replaces the implicit volumetric MLP of NeRF with an explicit set of anisotropic 3D Gaussian primitives $(\mu_{k},\Sigma_{k},\alpha_{k},c_{k})$. Each primitive is defined by: (i) a mean $\mu_{k}\!\in\!\mathbb{R}^{3}$ giving the 3D center of the Gaussian; (ii) a covariance $\Sigma_{k}\!\in\!\mathbb{R}^{3\times 3}$ encoding its spatial extent, orientation, and anisotropy; (iii) an opacity $\alpha_{k}\!\in\![0,1]$ determining the accumulation weight along the viewing ray; and (iv) a color $c_{k}\!\in\!\mathbb{R}^{3}$ specifying the RGB radiance emitted by the primitive. The density field contributed by the $k$-th Gaussian is $G_{k}(x)=\exp[-\tfrac{1}{2}(x-\mu_{k})^{\top}\allowbreak\Sigma_{k}^{-1}(x-\mu_{k})]$. To ensure that $\Sigma_{k}$ remains positive semi-definite and numerically stable during optimization, it is parameterized as $\Sigma_{k}=R_{k}S_{k}S_{k}^{\top}R_{k}^{\top}$, where $R_{k}\!\in\!SO(3)$ is a rotation matrix controlling orientation and $S_{k}$ is a diagonal scale matrix controlling the principal-axis radii.

Under a camera projection $\Pi:\mathbb{R}^{3}\!\rightarrow\!\mathbb{R}^{2}$, each 3D Gaussian induces a 2D elliptical footprint on the image plane. This footprint is obtained by locally linearizing $\Pi$ around the Gaussian mean and propagating the 3D covariance through the projection. The resulting 2D covariance is $\tilde{\Sigma}_{k}\propto J_{\Pi}(\mu_{k})\,\Sigma_{k}\,J_{\Pi}(\mu_{k})^{\top}$, where $J_{\Pi}(\mu_{k})$ is the Jacobian of the affine approximation of the projective transformation. The corresponding normalized image-plane kernel is $\mathcal{G}_{k}(u)=\exp[-\tfrac{1}{2}(u-\Pi(\mu_{k}))^{\top}\allowbreak\tilde{\Sigma}_{k}^{-1}(u-\Pi(\mu_{k}))]$, which determines how strongly the Gaussian contributes to pixel $u$.

Rendering is performed by depth-sorting the projected Gaussians and applying visibility-aware front-to-back $\alpha$-compositing. The color at pixel $u$ is $\hat{C}(u)=\sum_{k}[T_{k}\,\alpha_{k}\,\mathcal{G}_{k}(u)\,c_{k}]$, where the transmittance is $T_{k}=\prod_{j<k}(1-\alpha_{j}\,\mathcal{G}_{j}(u))$. This explicit, differentiable representation provides high-fidelity novel-view synthesis with real-time rendering performance and significantly reduced computational cost compared to volumetric ray marching.

Our objective is to develop a physically grounded representation of the RF propagation environment that can synthesize accurate channel characteristics at arbitrary 3D query locations with sub-millisecond latency. As described in Sec. 3.1, the wireless channel is formed by the coherent superposition of a finite set of multipath components. Their complex amplitudes and delays encode geometry-dependent phase evolution, making the channel extremely sensitive to small variations in the scene or carrier frequency. Modeling this joint multipath–geometry–directionality structure is challenging because RF observations are sparse, and signal strength exhibits a strict distance-dependent attenuation (approximately $1/d^{2}$), a behavior not present in vision-based measurements. Reliable modeling further requires directional responses that are often low-resolution, noisy, or only partially observed.

From a computational standpoint, synthesizing channel characteristics is demanding. It requires repeated steering operations, coherent phase aggregation, and inversion of directional projections. These steps are numerically sensitive and, when implemented naively, exceed the strict timing budget of PHY-layer control. Classical Gaussian Splatting cannot be used directly because RF has no camera intrinsics, no projective geometry, and requires custom CUDA kernels to propagate complex-valued fields, enforce phase consistency, and compute spectrum-to-channel mappings. A practical system must also provide a statistically meaningful confidence metric to decide when synthesized channels may safely replace pilot-based estimates. Existing RF modeling, reconstruction, and localization techniques cannot produce continuous 3D channel fields, do not preserve the complex-valued structure required for coherent communication, and miss real-time latency targets by one to two orders of magnitude. These limitations motivate the central question: Can we construct an RF-aware Gaussian Splatting framework that captures geometry-induced multipath propagation, produces physically consistent channel characteristics, and operates with a low-millisecond latency for integration into real communication systems?

To evaluate GSpaRC in a controlled yet realistic propagation environment, we generate an indoor dataset using the Sionna ray tracer. The transmitter is fixed and multiple receiver positions are sampled throughout the room, a setting that aligns well with GSpaRC since the Gaussian scene representation is anchored to a persistent source. Each sampled TX–RX configuration yields a spectrum image at the receiver.

Table 3 presents a comparison of GSpaRC with all baseline methods for this scene. GSpaRC consistently achieves the best overall performance across all evaluated metrics, demonstrating superior reconstruction quality relative to prior approaches. Figure 5(a) further highlights these improvements through the CDFs of SSIM and MSE, indicating that the gains from GSpaRC are consistent across the full distribution of test locations. Finally, Figure 5(b) demonstrates that GSpaRC’s confidence estimates are well aligned with reconstruction quality.

We evaluate GSpaRC on the publicly available RFID Spectrum NeRF² dataset [16]. The receiver is fixed, operates at 915 MHz, and is equipped with a $4{\times}4$ antenna array. The transmitter, an RFID tag, is placed at 6,123 distinct locations, and each location yields a spatial spectrum image recorded at the receiver. The loss is a weighted combination of L1 and SSIM with $\lambda_{1}=0.2$.

Table 4 presents a quantitative comparison using SSIM and MSE. GSpaRC matches GSRF in mean SSIM (0.82) and achieves the fastest rendering time at 0.8 ms, more than 20$\times$ faster than GSRF (23 ms), and the lowest latency among all methods. GSRF attains better MSE and PSNR when trained to convergence over 27 minutes, while GSpaRC converges in a comparable time with substantially lower inference cost.

Beyond spectrum reconstruction, GSpaRC can predict complex-valued CSI at unseen positions. We evaluate this ability on the Argos massive-MIMO dataset [10], a real-world outdoor deployment with a 64-antenna base station at 2.4 GHz and 4,000 user positions. Following [4], we use a pretrained CSI encoder to map uplink measurements to 3D positions (since the receiver positions are not explicitly provided in the dataset), with the massive-MIMO base-station antenna serving as the fixed transmitter. GSpaRC is trained to predict the complex downlink CSI, both real and imaginary, at each position over 26 subcarriers, using a complex MSE loss with a learned uncertainty term for per-position confidence.

The dataset is split into 3,200 training and 800 test samples. We report SNR (dB) and NMSE $=\sum\|\hat{h}-h\|^{2}/\sum\|h\|^{2}$, evaluated under the same normalization as GSRF. Table 5 shows our results indicating that the accuracy of GSpaRC is similar to that of GSRF, while significantly decreasing the inference time.

In addition to CSI values, GSpaRC outputs a per-position confidence score learned via an uncertainty-aware objective: positions with small prediction error receive high confidence, while those with large error receive low confidence. As shown in Figure 2, at threshold $\tau=0.59$, approximately 70% of the 800 test positions are assigned high confidence, meaning that pilot transmissions can be eliminated at those locations. This calibrated uncertainty estimate is used directly in the downstream tasks of Section 6.

We first evaluate whether GSpaRC-predicted CSI is accurate enough for link adaptation. In practical systems, the modulation and coding scheme (MCS) is selected based on channel quality, and inaccurate CSI can either cause decoding failure through overly aggressive MCS selection or reduce spectral efficiency through overly conservative choices. Our goal is to determine whether GSpaRC can support this decision while using its confidence score to identify the receiver locations where prediction quality is reliable.

For this experiment, we use Sionna’s link adaptation framework. For each receiver location, the predicted CSI is used to compute an effective SINR, which is then mapped to an MCS subject to a target BLER of 0.1. To keep the operating point meaningful for link adaptation, noise is added so that the effective SINR spans a practical range. The selected MCS is then compared against the oracle MCS obtained from the corresponding ground-truth CSI.

Figure 6 (right) shows that confidence increases monotonically with SNR, and the $\tau=0.59$ threshold cleanly separates the low-SNR brackets (below 15 dB) from the high-SNR majority, confirming that the score reflects genuine reconstruction quality. Figure 7(a) groups test samples by MCS prediction error and shows that low-error samples (error $=0$ and error $=2$) lie above $\tau=0.59$, while the rare high-error samples (error $>2$, only 5 samples) fall entirely below it. For each sample, the ideal throughput is computed from the assigned MCS as $T_{\text{ideal}}=(M\times R)\,N_{\text{sc}}\,f_{s}\,N_{L}$, where $M$ is the modulation order, $R$ the code rate, $N_{\text{sc}}=624$, $f_{s}=28{,}000$ symbols/s, and $N_{L}$ the number of layers. The effective throughput is then $T_{\text{eff}}=T_{\text{ideal}}(1-\text{TBLER})$, where TBLER is estimated using Sionna’s PHY abstraction from the per-sample SINR. Figure 7(b) shows that GSpaRC-based MCS selection achieves a mean throughput of 39.3 Mbps versus 39.7 Mbps for GT CSI, a gap of only 0.36 Mbps (0.9%), confirming near-optimal link throughput.

We next evaluate whether GSpaRC-predicted CSI can be used directly in a practical communication pipeline. To do so, we use test samples from the Argos CSI dataset and feed the predicted CSI into Sionna’s end-to-end 5G NR PUSCH simulation. The receiver processing chain includes DMRS-based channel estimation, LMMSE equalization, and decoding. Performance is evaluated in terms of both Bit Error Rate (BER) and Block Error Rate (BLER) as a function of $E_{b}/N_{0}$, the ratio of energy per information bit to noise power spectral density, which captures the effective signal-to-noise ratio.

Figure 8 compares three receiver-side CSI cases: i) perfect CSI knowledge, ii) CSI estimated from DMRS pilots using a least-squares (LS) estimator, and iii) CSI predicted by GSpaRC. A key observation is that downstream link performance is strongly tied to the confidence score produced by GSpaRC. When all test samples are used without filtering, prediction errors at difficult receiver locations noticeably degrade communication performance. In contrast, after applying a confidence threshold of $\tau=0.59$, approximately 70% of the Argos test samples are retained. For this high-confidence subset, the GSpaRC-based BER and BLER curves for QPSK closely follow the perfect-CSI and pilot-based LS baselines. This shows that GSpaRC can provide CSI of sufficient quality for PHY-layer communication over a substantial fraction of receiver locations, while low-confidence samples can be naturally identified for fallback to conventional pilot-based estimation.

We first evaluate the contribution of the $1/d$ free-space attenuation term in the RF compositing rule. This term gives the renderer a simple physical prior: Gaussians farther from the transmitter should contribute less energy. We compare GSpaRC with and without this term on the RFID dataset.

Figure 9 shows that including $1/d$ shifts the SSIM and PSNR CDFs to the right and the MSE CDF to the left. Thus, the physics-informed model improves both perceptual and numerical reconstruction quality. The gain is most visible in the high-quality part of the distribution, where accurate modeling of attenuation helps sharpen the dominant spatial lobes. This result supports the main modeling choice in GSpaRC: simple RF priors can reduce the burden on the learned Gaussian representation and improve reconstruction without adding significant computation.

We next study whether the custom CUDA renderer preserves low latency as scene complexity changes. Figure 10 reports rendering-time CDFs for different Gaussian counts and for the RFID and Sionna datasets.¹¹1Figure 10 reports CUDA kernel time only; render times in Tables 3–5 include end-to-end inference with MLP evaluation and data transfer. The left panel shows that latency increases smoothly with the number of Gaussians, rather than exhibiting sharp slowdowns. Even for the largest tested representation, with roughly $6.2\times 10^{4}$ Gaussians, rendering remains in the low-millisecond range.

The dataset-specific CDFs show the same trend. On RFID, the median and 95th-percentile rendering times are approximately 0.39 ms and 0.40 ms. On Sionna, they are approximately 0.33 ms and 0.34 ms. These results indicate that GSpaRC can render spectra well within the few-millisecond time scale needed for fast channel prediction and related PHY-layer decisions, even on a modest GPU.

Finally, we vary the hidden size of the per-Gaussian emission MLP. This ablation tests whether GSpaRC needs a large neural decoder or whether most of the useful structure is already captured by the geometry of the Gaussian field.

Figure 11 compares hidden sizes 8, 16, and 64 using SSIM, PSNR, and MSE CDFs. The curves are nearly overlapping across all three metrics. Increasing the MLP size produces only minor changes in the high-accuracy tail and does not substantially improve the overall distribution. This shows that reconstruction quality is driven mainly by the spatial Gaussian representation and RF-aware rendering, rather than by a large neural network. We therefore use a hidden size of 16, which provides a good accuracy and efficiency tradeoff.