pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.05541 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 💻 cs.RO

Real-world Latency Analysis of Vehicular Visible Light Communication with Multiple LED Transmitters and an Event-Based Camera

Ryota Soga , Tsukasa Shimizu , Shintaro Shiba , Quan Kong , Shan Lu , Takaya Yamazato This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 09:27 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords visible light communicationevent cameravehicular VLClatency measurementV2Xcooperative perceptionmulti-transmitter reception
0
0 comments X

The pith

Event-camera-based VLC delivers end-to-end latency that meets cooperative perception requirements in real vehicular tests with up to three LED transmitters.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests whether event cameras can serve as practical receivers for visible light communication in moving vehicles. It introduces a positive-event-only mode and supporting protocol that cuts unnecessary data while keeping usable range and wide viewing angle. A separate identification technique allows the receiver to separate signals from multiple LED transmitters at once. Real-road experiments then measure the full time from transmission to decoded output and find the values stay inside the limits needed for vehicles to share perception data. These outcomes indicate the approach can supplement radio V2X links rather than replace them.

Core claim

An event-camera VLC receiver using positive-event-only operation and a custom protocol suppresses event volume enough to avoid bandwidth saturation, while a pattern-based method identifies and decodes up to three simultaneous LED transmitters; real-vehicle trials then record end-to-end latencies that satisfy cooperative perception timing constraints, establishing the technology as a workable complement to RF-based V2X.

What carries the argument

Positive-event-only mode paired with a protocol that limits event generation while preserving distance and field of view, together with an event-pattern method that distinguishes multiple transmitters.

If this is right

  • Simultaneous reception from as many as three LED transmitters is possible with the identification method.
  • End-to-end latency remains inside cooperative-perception limits during actual vehicle motion.
  • Event-camera VLC functions as a practical addition to existing radio V2X systems.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same receiver could support more than three transmitters if the identification patterns can be extended without raising false positives.
  • Hybrid RF-plus-VLC stacks might use the optical link for the lowest-latency perception packets while routing other traffic over radio.
  • Wide dynamic range of event cameras may reduce sensitivity to headlight glare or tunnel lighting changes that affect conventional cameras.

Load-bearing premise

The positive-event-only mode and protocol cut event volume enough to avoid saturation without shortening range or shrinking the field of view, and the transmitter-identification step stays reliable under vehicle motion and changing light.

What would settle it

A sequence of on-road drives in which either the multi-LED identification fails under motion or the measured end-to-end latency repeatedly exceeds cooperative-perception thresholds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05541 by Quan Kong, Ryota Soga, Shan Lu, Shintaro Shiba, Takaya Yamazato, Tsukasa Shimizu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: We evaluated the end-to-end latency of infrastructure-to-vehicle view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: System model. The system model used in our previous work view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Example of the synchronization and multi-transmitter identification view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The BER characteristics of the conventional and proposed protocols view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The BER characteristics of the conventional protocol [7] and the view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Latency measured while varying the number of transmitters (pay view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Latency measured while varying payload size (1 transmitter, speed: view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Event cameras offer high temporal resolution, low latency, and wide dynamic range, making them promising receivers for visible light communication (VLC) in vehicle-to-everything (V2X) applications. This work presents an event-camera-based VLC system addressing three key challenges: bandwidth saturation, multi-transmitter reception, and latency characterization. We adopt a positive-event-only mode and design a protocol that suppresses event generation while maintaining communication distance and a wide field of view. We also propose a method to identify multiple transmitters and demonstrate simultaneous reception from up to three LEDs. Finally, we evaluate end-to-end latency in real vehicular scenarios and show that the system meets cooperative perception requirements. These results demonstrate that event-camera-based VLC is a feasible complement to existing V2X technologies (e.g., RF).

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents an event-camera-based visible light communication (VLC) system for vehicular V2X applications. It adopts a positive-event-only mode together with a custom protocol intended to suppress event generation while preserving communication distance and wide field of view, proposes a multi-transmitter identification method demonstrated for up to three LEDs, and reports an end-to-end latency evaluation performed in real vehicular scenarios that is claimed to satisfy cooperative-perception requirements, thereby positioning event-camera VLC as a feasible complement to RF-based V2X technologies.

Significance. If the quantitative latency results and reliability of the multi-transmitter method are substantiated, the work would offer a concrete empirical contribution to the use of neuromorphic sensors for low-latency vehicular VLC. The emphasis on real-world evaluation and the explicit handling of bandwidth saturation and simultaneous multi-LED reception address practical obstacles that are central to deploying VLC in cooperative perception systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'we evaluate end-to-end latency in real vehicular scenarios and show that the system meets cooperative perception requirements' is unsupported by any numerical latency values, error statistics, requirement thresholds, or baseline comparisons. This quantitative gap is load-bearing for the central feasibility claim.
  2. [Protocol and identification method] The positive-event-only protocol and multi-transmitter identification: no quantitative characterization is supplied of event-rate reduction, distance/FOV trade-offs, or identification error rates as functions of vehicle speed, angle, or illumination. Without these data the assumptions that the protocol preserves range/FOV and that identification remains reliable under motion and lighting variation cannot be verified, directly affecting the validity of the reported latency results.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract would be strengthened by the inclusion of at least one key latency figure and the number of trials performed.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and indicate the changes planned for the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the assertion that 'we evaluate end-to-end latency in real vehicular scenarios and show that the system meets cooperative perception requirements' is unsupported by any numerical latency values, error statistics, requirement thresholds, or baseline comparisons. This quantitative gap is load-bearing for the central feasibility claim.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would be strengthened by including key quantitative results. The manuscript body reports the end-to-end latency measurements obtained in real vehicular scenarios along with the associated statistics and direct comparison against cooperative-perception latency thresholds. In the revision we will incorporate representative numerical latency values, error statistics, and the explicit requirement thresholds into the abstract to make the central claim self-contained. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Protocol and identification method] The positive-event-only protocol and multi-transmitter identification: no quantitative characterization is supplied of event-rate reduction, distance/FOV trade-offs, or identification error rates as functions of vehicle speed, angle, or illumination. Without these data the assumptions that the protocol preserves range/FOV and that identification remains reliable under motion and lighting variation cannot be verified, directly affecting the validity of the reported latency results.

    Authors: The manuscript describes the positive-event-only protocol and the multi-transmitter identification method and demonstrates simultaneous reception from up to three LEDs under real-world conditions. We will add the measured event-rate reduction achieved by the protocol and the observed distance/FOV performance from the conducted tests. For identification error rates, we will report the rates observed in the tested vehicular scenarios and explicitly state the ranges of speed, angle, and illumination covered. A full parametric characterization across all possible variations was not performed in the current real-world evaluation. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • Comprehensive parametric characterization of identification error rates as functions of vehicle speed, angle, and illumination across wide ranges, which would require additional controlled experiments beyond the real-world scenarios evaluated in this work.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely experimental evaluation with no derivations or self-referential predictions

full rationale

The paper is a descriptive experimental report on real-world latency measurements for an event-camera VLC system in vehicular settings. It contains no equations, fitted parameters, mathematical derivations, or predictions that reduce to inputs by construction. Claims rest on direct empirical observations of latency under stated protocols and multi-LED reception, with no self-citation chains or ansatzes invoked to justify core results. The positive-event-only mode and identification method are presented as design choices whose performance is measured, not derived from prior self-referential results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is an applied experimental paper with no mathematical derivations; it draws on standard principles of event cameras and visible light communication from prior literature without introducing new axioms, free parameters, or invented entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5452 in / 1220 out tokens · 55539 ms · 2026-05-08T09:27:38.470359+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

14 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Event-Based Vision: A Survey ,

    G. Gallego, T. Delbruck, G. Orchard, C. Bartolozzi, B. Taba, A. Censi, S. Leutenegger, A. J. Davison, J. Conradt, K. Daniilidis, and D. Scara- muzza, “ Event-Based Vision: A Survey ,”IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis & Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 01, pp. 154– 180, Jan. 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Vehicular visible light communication with dynamic vision sensor: A preliminary study,

    W. Shen, P. W. Chen, and H. M. Tsai, “Vehicular visible light communication with dynamic vision sensor: A preliminary study,” in 2018 IEEE Vehicular Networking Conference (VNC). Taipei, Taiwan: IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–8

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    Vehicular visible light communication with dynamic vision sensor,

    W. H. Shen, “Vehicular visible light communication with dynamic vision sensor,” inThe ACM MobiSys 2019 on Rising Stars Forum, ser. RisingStarsForum’19. Seoul, Republic of Korea: Association for Computing Machinery, 2019, pp. 25–30

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Dynamic event-based optical identification and commu- nication,

    A. von Arnim, J. Lecomte, N. Elosegui Borras, S. Wo´ zniak, and A. Pantazi, “Dynamic event-based optical identification and commu- nication,”Frontiers in Neurorobotics, vol. 18, p. 1290965, 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Event-based vision meets deep learning on steering prediction for self-driving cars,

    A. I. Maqueda, A. Loquercio, G. Gallego, N. García, and D. Scara- muzza, “Event-based vision meets deep learning on steering prediction for self-driving cars,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Salt Lake City, UT, USA: IEEE, 2018, pp. 5419–5427

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Performance evaluation of vehicular visible light communication system using event camera and multiple light sources,

    R. Soga, T. Shimizu, S. Shiba, K. Kobori, S. Lu, and T. Yamazato, “Performance evaluation of vehicular visible light communication system using event camera and multiple light sources,”IEICE Trans- actions on Communications, 2026

    work page 2026

  7. [7]

    Performance evaluation of an integrated system for visible light communication and positioning using an event camera,

    R. Soga, M. Kobayashi, T. Shimizu, S. Shiba, Q. Kong, S. Lu, and T. Yamazato, “Performance evaluation of an integrated system for visible light communication and positioning using an event camera,” in Proceedings of the 30th Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications (APCC), Osaka, Japan, Nov. 2025

    work page 2025

  8. [8]

    E-: A real-world dataset for event-based visible light communication and localization,

    S. Shiba, Q. Kong, and N. Kobori, “E-: A real-world dataset for event-based visible light communication and localization,” in2025 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), June 2025, pp. 4877–4886

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Delay modeling of camera- based visible light communication systems using queuing theory,

    K. Nakano, S. Lu, and T. Yamazato, “Delay modeling of camera- based visible light communication systems using queuing theory,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Emerging Technolo- gies for Communications (ICETC), Osaka, Japan, Nov. 2025

    work page 2025

  10. [10]

    Evaluation of mobile environment for vehicular visible light communication using multiple leds and event cameras,

    R. Soga, S. Shiba, Q. Kong, N. Kobori, T. Shimizu, S. Lu, and T. Yamazato, “Evaluation of mobile environment for vehicular visible light communication using multiple leds and event cameras,” in Proceedings of the 2025 IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). IEEE, 2025

    work page 2025

  11. [11]

    An adaptive fusion successive cancellation list decoder for polar codes with cyclic redundancy check,

    Y . Wang, H. Yin, Z. Yang, Y . Lv, L. Si, and X. Yu, “An adaptive fusion successive cancellation list decoder for polar codes with cyclic redundancy check,”IEICE Transactions on Communications, vol. E103.B, no. 1, pp. 43–51, 2020

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    Sequential operations in digital picture processing,

    J. L. Pfaltz and A. Rosenfeld, “Sequential operations in digital picture processing,”Journal of the ACM, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 471–494, 1966

    work page 1966

  13. [13]

    Intelligent transport systems (ITS); vehicular communications; basic set of applications; analysis of the collective perception service (CPS); release 2,

    “Intelligent transport systems (ITS); vehicular communications; basic set of applications; analysis of the collective perception service (CPS); release 2,” ETSI, Sophia Antipolis, France, ETSI Technical Report TR 103 562 v2.1.1, Oct. 2019, version 2.1.1, October 2019

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    Intelligent transport systems (ITS); vehicular communications; basic set of applications; sensor information sharing (SIS) service; release 2,

    “Intelligent transport systems (ITS); vehicular communications; basic set of applications; sensor information sharing (SIS) service; release 2,” ETSI, Sophia Antipolis, France, ETSI Technical Specification TS 103 324 v2.1.1, Apr. 2020, version 2.1.1, April 2020

    work page 2020