Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 71 references

Noise Filtering Benchmark for Neuromorphic Satellites Observations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that on the new Ev-Satellites dataset, the learning-based FEAST algorithm outperforms all 11 compared noise filters, with an AUC of 0.99.

desk verdict Useful real-world satellite event dataset and broad denoising benchmark, but FEAST's win is likely inflated by an event-level train/test split and missing error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11233 v1 pith:A55Z5GBP submitted 2024-11-18 cs.CV cs.LG

Sami Arja , Alexandre Marcireau , Nicholas Owen Ralph , Saeed Afshar , Gregory Cohen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.LG
keywords eventcamerasneuromorphicvisionnoisefilteringsatelliteobservationspacesituationalawarenessbenchmarkdatasetFEASThotpixelremoval
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper asks whether event-camera noise filtering works when the signal is as sparse as a glinting satellite against a noisy night sky. To answer it, the authors built the Ev-Satellites dataset, 100 real 30-second recordings from a telescope-mounted event camera with per-event ground truth for satellites, stars, hot pixels, and background noise. They benchmark 11 existing noise filters, propose a lightweight logic-based filter called CrossConv, and test the learning-based FEAST algorithm in two configurations. Their central finding is that FEAST learns to separate satellites from noise and hot pixels better than any compared method, reaching AUC 0.99, while the logic-based EvFlow preserves the most satellite events but leaves many hot pixels. The importance is practical: if true, learning-based filtering can make sparse-space-object detection and tracking viable under low-light, noise-dominated conditions.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the Ev-Satellites ground-truth pipeline and the evaluation protocol built on it. The pipeline first estimates the field velocity with Contrast Maximization, uses connected components and Astrometry.net against the Gaia DR3 catalog to label stars, uses orbital-prediction-initialized positions with manually drawn circles to label satellites, and labels the top 2% brightest pixels as hot pixels. Performance is then measured by ROC curves across each algorithm's parameter space, plus Signal Retain, Noise Removal, Hot Pixel Removal, and Denoise Accuracy metrics. The other load-bearing component is FEAST (Feature Extraction with Adaptive Selection Thresholds), a spiking-neuron-like feature extractor; the paper repurposes it as a supervised two-class filter by training separate weight and threshold sets for signal and noise, and optionally adds a linear classifier trained with the OPIUM pseudoinverse update. CrossConv, the proposed logic-based algorithm, filters by convolving the zero-motion accumulated image with four shift kernels, max-pooling into a plus-shaped map, and thresholding the ratio of the original image to that map.

What would settle it

Recompute the benchmark metrics after re-labeling a random sample of the 100 recordings by independent human annotation of the raw event stream, or by shifting the hot-pixel percentile and the star-finding sensitivity, and check whether FEAST's AUC of 0.99 and its ranking over EvFlow and CrossConv survive those label changes.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that on Ev-Satellites, a real-world sparse satellite dataset, the FEAST algorithm attains significantly higher ROC/AUC than any of the noise filtering methods, with AUC 0.99, SR 85.54, NR 99.00, HPR 98.29, and DA 94.28. The FEAST variant with a linear classifier achieves the best noise and hot-pixel removal among all tested algorithms, with NR 99.84, HPR 99.88, and AUC 0.98. Among logic-based methods, EvFlow preserves the most satellite events, with SR 95.98, but removes far fewer hot pixels, with HPR 58.72, while the proposed CrossConv removes hot pixels best among logic-based filters, with HPR 90.29, at the cost of lower noise removal, with NR 34.92. The paper also claims that the dataset provides high-quality ground truth enabling precise evaluation, and that hot-pixel removal, rather than raw noise removal, is the critical task in sparse scenes.

Load-bearing premise

The whole ranking depends on the hand-built labels being right: hot pixels are whatever falls in the top 2% of pixel brightness, satellites are circles drawn by hand around positions predicted from orbital data, and stars are found with a particular sensitivity setting, with a single 50/50 split and no error bars.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, learning-based filtering should be preferred over logic-based rules for sparse event streams, at least when labeled training data from the same sky-survey setup is available.
  • The Ev-Satellites dataset gives the space situational awareness community a common evaluation set with per-event labels, so future filters can be compared on equal footing.
  • Because FEAST with a classifier removes nearly all hot pixels, with HPR 99.88, downstream motion estimation and tracking can run on cleaner streams, potentially improving convergence and tracking reliability.
  • Even the best filter preserves only about 96% of satellite events, so downstream detectors should expect some signal loss and be designed to tolerate it.
  • Window-size experiments show learning-based filters are stable across 1-20 second windows, suggesting they can be applied in short, low-latency bursts without waiting for long integrations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension is to re-run the same benchmark with ground-truth labels produced by independent human annotation or by a different labeling pipeline; if FEAST's margin over EvFlow and CrossConv shrinks or flips, the reported ranking is partly an artifact of the labeling heuristics.
  • The paper treats stars as neither signal nor noise for evaluation, leaving ambiguous faint stars unlabeled; a three-way evaluation of satellite versus star versus noise might change which filter looks best for star-field imaging.
  • Because the data come from one observation site and one telescope-camera chain, the general claim of learning-based superiority should be tested on other mounts, sky backgrounds, and sensor bias settings before being treated as a universal rule.
  • An implicit consequence the authors do not fully draw out is that aggregate accuracy hides large differences in hot-pixel removal, so future benchmarks should report hot-pixel removal separately from general noise removal.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents a benchmark and new algorithms for denoising event-camera streams in very sparse satellite-observation scenes. The authors introduce Ev-Satellites, a set of 100 real 30-second recordings from the Astrosite platform with per-event labels generated by a pipeline that uses CMax motion compensation, astrometry.net/Gaia star matching, TLE-initialized manual satellite circles, and a top-2% hot-pixel heuristic. They propose a logical filter, CrossConv, and evaluate two supervised variants of FEAST, comparing them with 11 existing filters using SR, NR, HPR, DA, and ROC/AUC. Table 1 reports FEAST as best overall (AUC 0.99, DA 94.28) and FEAST+Classifier as best at NR/HPR, while EvFlow has the highest SR among the logical filters. The paper concludes that learning-based FEAST is superior for this task and that the dataset enables precise noise-filtering evaluation.

Significance. The Ev-Satellites dataset and the systematic ROC-based comparison are potentially useful contributions to an under-served regime: very sparse event streams for space situational awareness. The public release of code, data, and trained weights, the inclusion of a separate hot-pixel-removal metric, and the use of real-world rather than simulated recordings are all strengths. If the evaluation protocol is fixed, the benchmark could become a useful reference for SSA noise filtering. However, as submitted, the central claim that FEAST 'attains a significantly higher ROC/AUC than any of the noise filtering methods' is not yet supported because the supervised methods may have been evaluated with an event-level rather than recording-level split, and the ground-truth labeling heuristics are not independently validated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, §4 (FEAST+Classifier), Eq. (3)] The learning-based evaluation appears to split the event-level feature and label matrices rather than the recordings. The text says 'A cross-validation of 50 by 50 is applied to split the features and labels matrices to train and test sets' and Section 5.2 repeats a 'cross-validation of 50 by 50'. Since FEAST builds an 11×11 time-surface context around each event and trains for 10 epochs on events from the same recordings that contribute test events, neighboring events from the same satellite trail, hot pixel, or noise burst can appear in both training and test sets. This would selectively inflate the two supervised FEAST variants, which are exactly the methods claimed to be best, while leaving the logical baselines unaffected. Please re-run the comparison with a recording-level split, repeat over several splits, and report mean and standard deviation; a single split with no error bars cannot establish that AUC 0.99 is significantly better than 0.98.
  2. [§3.3] The benchmark's validity depends on the ground-truth pipeline, but three heuristics are unvalidated: hot pixels are defined as the top 2% brightest pixels of the accumulated image; satellite events are all events inside manually drawn circles around TLE-initialized positions; and stars are matched with astrometry.net using rho=0.9, with the paper conceding that some faint stars remain unlabelled. If a noise event lies on a satellite-trail pixel inside a manual circle, it is labelled as satellite, which can inflate SR for filters that keep all events in the circle; if the top-2% threshold misclassifies high-activity noise, the HPR and NR numbers change. The paper should provide an error analysis or independent validation, such as a visual audit, comparison with TLE/astrometry residuals, or a sensitivity analysis of the 2% threshold and rho. Without this, the claim of 'high-quality ground truth' is not established.
  3. [§5.3, Table 1, §6] There is a direct contradiction in the hot-pixel results. Section 5.3 states that CrossConv 'excels in removing hot pixels, achieving the best result in this category among logic-based methods', but Table 1 lists KNoise HPR=98.72 versus CrossConv HPR=90.29, and Section 6 later says 'KNoise was the most effective at removing hot pixels among the logical-based algorithm, followed by CrossConv'. Section 5.3 should be corrected to agree with Table 1 and Section 6; a benchmark paper with contradictory text about its own results is not reliable as published.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The caption states the goal is 'fully preserving the satellite signals', but Table 1 reports a maximum SR of 95.98% and Section 6 acknowledges that 'the best algorithm can only preserve up to 95.98% of the satellite events'; please rephrase the caption to match the quantitative results.
  2. [§5.1, Table 1] STDF [31] appears in Table 1 and is swept in Section 5.2, but it is not described in the baseline list in Section 5.1; add a short description and verify the reference.
  3. [§5.2] The phrase 'cross-validation of 50 by 50' is not a cross-validation; it describes a single 50/50 split. Please use consistent terminology and, if repeated splits are added, report them as folds.
  4. [§3.2, Figure 2] The text refers to 'Figure 2(e)', but the Figure 2 caption lists panels (a)-(d); correct the cross-reference.
  5. [§4, Cross-Convolution] The convolution expression 'H N Ki' appears to be a typesetting error; use a standard notation such as H * Ki or H ⊛ Ki.
  6. [§4, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) is garbled: the OPIUM least-squares solution should be written with proper superscripts and the regularization term in the correct position, e.g., Wc = (A^T A + α I)^{-1} A^T Y.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Benchmark comparison is empirical and self-contained; the FEAST result is measured on held-out data and anchored by external labels, with only mild in-group dataset construction.

full rationale

The central claim is an empirical performance comparison of noise-filtering algorithms on a new dataset, evaluated on held-out data. Ground-truth labels are anchored by external references: astrometry.net with Gaia DR3 for stars, TLE-initialized manual circles for satellites, and a statistical top-2% rule for hot pixels. These labels are not defined in terms of the algorithms being evaluated, and the reported AUC/SR/NR/HPR values are derived from comparing algorithm outputs to those labels. FEAST is trained on 50% of the feature/label matrix and evaluated on the other 50%, so its superior score is an empirical result rather than a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The main caveats, which are correctness risks rather than circularity, are that the split wording ('50 by 50' applied to 'features and labels matrices') may indicate an event-level rather than recording-level split, which could allow spatial-temporal context leakage for the supervised methods, and that no error bars are reported. The in-group lineage of FEAST and the Astrosite infrastructure is self-citation, but the comparison against 11 external baselines and the externally anchored labels give the benchmark independent content. No equation in the paper reduces a derived result to an input by construction, and no load-bearing uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The benchmark's central numbers depend on several hand-chosen thresholds and domain assumptions, most notably the hot-pixel definition and manual satellite labeling. These are not fitted parameters of the algorithms, but they define the ground truth that all reported scores measure.

free parameters (6)
  • Hot pixel ground-truth threshold = 98th percentile (top 2%)
    Defines which pixels are labeled as hot pixels in the dataset; this cutoff is chosen by the authors, not derived, and directly shapes the HPR metric.
  • CrossConv threshold = swept in ROC
    The only parameter of the proposed CrossConv algorithm; no closed-form selection is given.
  • FEAST time constant tau = 1e5 microseconds
    Chosen for the time-surface kernel; affects the learned features.
  • FEAST learning rates = 0.0005 (background), 0.01 (foreground)
    Different learning rates selected to handle class imbalance; hand-chosen.
  • Star detection sensitivity rho = 0.9
    Sets the connected-components threshold for star detection; chosen to push limiting magnitude to 14.
  • MLPF hyperparameters = lr=1e-4, batch=100, hidden=500, dropout=0.2, epochs=100
    Standard training choices; not tuned on the test set.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Event camera events are generated by brightness changes at pixels, and noise is primarily background activity and hot pixels as described in prior work.
    Used implicitly in Section 2 and 3; standard model for DVS noise.
  • domain assumption Astrometry.net with Gaia DR3 correctly identifies star positions in the accumulated image.
    Used in Section 3.3 to label stars; if astrometry is wrong, star labels are wrong.
  • domain assumption TLE data plus manual circle placement correctly identifies all satellite events.
    Section 3.3: TLE is used as initial estimate, then manual circles are placed; assumes no satellite events fall outside the circles.
  • ad hoc to paper Hot pixels are exactly the top 2% of brightest pixels in the accumulated frame.
    Section 3.3: this threshold is arbitrary and defines the ground truth for hot pixels, so HPR measures removal of this specific definition.
  • domain assumption CMax contrast maximization converges to the correct field velocity when manually initialized near the true value.
    Section 3.3: the authors manually initialize theta because noise can cause convergence to incorrect maxima; assumes the manual initialization yields the true motion.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Noise Filtering Benchmark for Neuromorphic Satellites Observations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A55Z5GBP

@misc{pith2026241111233,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Noise Filtering Benchmark for Neuromorphic Satellites Observations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A55Z5GBP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11233}
}
read the original abstract

Event cameras capture sparse, asynchronous brightness changes which offer high temporal resolution, high dynamic range, low power consumption, and sparse data output. These advantages make them ideal for Space Situational Awareness, particularly in detecting resident space objects moving within a telescope's field of view. However, the output from event cameras often includes substantial background activity noise, which is known to be more prevalent in low-light conditions. This noise can overwhelm the sparse events generated by satellite signals, making detection and tracking more challenging. Existing noise-filtering algorithms struggle in these scenarios because they are typically designed for denser scenes, where losing some signal is acceptable. This limitation hinders the application of event cameras in complex, real-world environments where signals are extremely sparse. In this paper, we propose new event-driven noise-filtering algorithms specifically designed for very sparse scenes. We categorise the algorithms into logical-based and learning-based approaches and benchmark their performance against 11 state-of-the-art noise-filtering algorithms, evaluating how effectively they remove noise and hot pixels while preserving the signal. Their performance was quantified by measuring signal retention and noise removal accuracy, with results reported using ROC curves across the parameter space. Additionally, we introduce a new high-resolution satellite dataset with ground truth from a real-world platform under various noise conditions, which we have made publicly available. Code, dataset, and trained weights are available at \url{https://github.com/samiarja/dvs_sparse_filter}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11233 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The neuromorphic satellites observations application. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview about the satellite dataset from an event [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Astrosite setup. The data was collected with As [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Labelling process for the ”Ev-Satellites” dataset, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overview of the noise filtering algorithms used in this paper. (A) The pipeline of our proposed CrossConv noise [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: ROC curves and summarized AUC values on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Visual comparison of noise filtering algorithms on the Ev-Satellite dataset. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Performance comparison of all noise filtering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A 128$\times$128 120 dB 15 $ \mu$s Latency Asynchronous Temporal Contrast Vision Sensor,

    P. Lichtsteiner, C. Posch, and T. Delbruck, “A 128$\times$128 120 dB 15 $ \mu$s Latency Asynchronous Temporal Contrast Vision Sensor,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits , vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 566–576, 2008. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4444573/

    work page arXiv 2008

  2. [2]

    Finateu, A

    T. Finateu, A. Niwa, D. Matolin, K. Tsuchimoto, A. Mascheroni, E. Reynaud, P. Mostafalu, F. T. Brady, L. Chotard, F. Legoff, H. Takahashi, H. Wakabayashi, Y . Oike, and C. Posch, “5.10 a 1280×720 back- illuminated stacked temporal contrast event-based vi- sion sensor with 4.86µm pixels, 1.066geps readout, programmable event-rate controller and compressive...

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Event-Based Object Detection and Tracking for Space Situational Awareness,

    S. Afshar, A. P. Nicholson, A. Van Schaik, and G. Cohen, “Event-Based Object Detection and Tracking for Space Situational Awareness,” IEEE Sensors J., vol. 20, no. 24, pp. 15 117–15 132, Dec

    work page

  4. [4]

    Optimal biasing and physical limits of DVS event noise

    R. Graca, B. McReynolds, and T. Delbruck, “Optimal biasing and physical limits of DVS event noise,” Apr. 2023, arXiv:2304.04019 [cs, eess]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.04019

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Shin- ing light on the dvs pixel: A tutorial and discussion about biasing and optimization,

    R. Grac ¸a, B. McReynolds, and T. Delbruck, “Shin- ing light on the dvs pixel: A tutorial and discussion about biasing and optimization,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops , June 2023, pp. 4045–4053

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Exploit- ing alternating dvs shot noise event pair statistics to re- duce background activity,

    B. Mcreynolds, R. Grac ¸a, and T. Delbruck, “Exploit- ing alternating dvs shot noise event pair statistics to re- duce background activity,” 2023. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:258041241

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Temperature and Parasitic Photocurrent Effects in Dynamic Vision Sensors,

    Y . Nozaki and T. Delbruck, “Temperature and Parasitic Photocurrent Effects in Dynamic Vision Sensors,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices , vol. 64, no. 8, pp. 3239–3245, Aug. 2017. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7962235/

    work page arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Unraveling the para- dox of intensity-dependent DVS pixel noise,

    R. Graca and T. Delbruck, “Unraveling the para- dox of intensity-dependent DVS pixel noise,” Sep. 2021, arXiv:2109.08640 [physics]. [Online]. Avail- able: http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.08640

    arXiv 2021

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    v2e: From video frames to realistic dvs events,

    Y . Hu, S.-C. Liu, and T. Delbruck, “v2e: From video frames to realistic dvs events,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops , June 2021, pp. 1312–1321

    2021

  2. [10]

    Low Cost and Latency Event Camera Background Activity Denoising,

    S. Guo and T. Delbruck, “Low Cost and Latency Event Camera Background Activity Denoising,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 785–795, Jan. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9720086/

    2023

  3. [11]

    A unifying contrast maximization framework for event cameras, with applications to motion, depth, and optical flow estimation,

    G. Gallego, H. Rebecq, and D. Scaramuzza, “A unifying contrast maximization framework for event cameras, with applications to motion, depth, and optical flow estimation,” in 2018 IEEE/CVF Con- ference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion. IEEE, pp. 3867–3876. [Online]....

    2018

  4. [12]

    Binocular telescope for neuromorphic space situational awareness,

    A. Marcireau, S. Afshar, N. Ralph, I. Jones, and G. Cohen, “Binocular telescope for neuromorphic space situational awareness,” in Proceedings of the Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance (AMOS) Technologies Conference, 2023, p. 137

    2023

  5. [13]

    Astrometric cal- ibration and source characterisation of the latest generation neuromorphic event-based cameras for space imaging,

    N. O. Ralph, A. Marcireau, S. Afshar, N. Tothill, A. Van Schaik, and G. Cohen, “Astrometric cal- ibration and source characterisation of the latest generation neuromorphic event-based cameras for space imaging,” Astrodyn, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 415–443, Dec. 2023. [Online]. Availa...

    2023 doi

  6. [14]

    Demystifying Event-based Sensor Biasing to Optimize Signal to Noise for Space Domain Awareness,

    B. McReynolds, R. Graca, R. Oliver, M. Nishiguchi, and T. Delbruck, “Demystifying Event-based Sensor Biasing to Optimize Signal to Noise for Space Domain Awareness,” Sep. 2023, publisher: s.n. [Online]. Available: https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/254194

    2023

  7. [15]

    Less data same information for event-based sensors: A bioinspired filtering and data reduction algorithm,

    J. Barrios-Avil ´es, A. Rosado-Mu ˜noz, L. D. Medus, M. Bataller-Mompe ´an, and J. F. Guerrero-Mart ´ınez, “Less data same information for event-based sensors: A bioinspired filtering and data reduction algorithm,” Sensors, vol. 18, no. 12, p. 4122, 2018

    2018

  8. [16]

    O(N)-Space Spatiotemporal Filter for Reducing Noise in Neu- romorphic Vision Sensors,

    A. Khodamoradi and R. Kastner, “O(N)-Space Spatiotemporal Filter for Reducing Noise in Neu- romorphic Vision Sensors,” IEEE Trans. Emerg. Topics Comput., pp. 1–1, 2018. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8244294/

    2018

  9. [17]

    Design of a spatiotemporal correlation filter for event-based sensors,

    H. Liu, C. Brandli, C. Li, S.-C. Liu, and T. Del- bruck, “Design of a spatiotemporal correlation filter for event-based sensors,” in 2015 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS). IEEE, 2015, pp. 722–725

    2015

  10. [18]

    Event-based visual flow,

    R. Benosman, C. Clercq, X. Lagorce, S.-H. Ieng, and C. Bartolozzi, “Event-based visual flow,” IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 407–417, 2013

    2013

  11. [19]

    Frame-free dynamic digital vision,

    T. Delbruck, “Frame-free dynamic digital vision,” Mar. 2008, publisher: University of Tokyo. [Online]. Available: https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/17620

    2008

  12. [20]

    Event probability mask (epm) and event denoising convolutional neural network (edncnn) for neuromorphic cameras,

    R. W. Baldwin, M. Almatrafi, V . Asari, and K. Hi- rakawa, “Event probability mask (epm) and event denoising convolutional neural network (edncnn) for neuromorphic cameras,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR), June 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    Inceptive Event Time-Surfaces for Object Classification Using Neuromorphic Cameras,

    R. W. Baldwin, M. Almatrafi, J. R. Kaufman, V . Asari, and K. Hirakawa, “Inceptive Event Time-Surfaces for Object Classification Using Neuromorphic Cameras,” in Image Analysis and Recognition , F. Karray, A. Campilho, and A. Yu, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 20...

    2019

  14. [22]

    Joint filtering of in- tensity images and neuromorphic events for high- resolution noise-robust imaging,

    Z. W. Wang, P. Duan, O. Cossairt, A. Katsagge- los, T. Huang, and B. Shi, “Joint filtering of in- tensity images and neuromorphic events for high- resolution noise-robust imaging,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2020, pp. ...

    2020

  15. [23]

    AEDNet: Asynchronous Event Denoising with Spatial-Temporal Correlation among Irregular Data,

    H. Fang, J. Wu, L. Li, J. Hou, W. Dong, and G. Shi, “AEDNet: Asynchronous Event Denoising with Spatial-Temporal Correlation among Irregular Data,” in Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Multimedia. Lisboa Portugal: ACM, Oct. 2022, pp. 1427–1435. [Online]. A...

    2022

  16. [24]

    LED: A Large-scale Real-world Paired Dataset for Event Camera Denois- ing,

    Y . Duan, S. Peng, L. Zhu, W. Zhang, Y . Chang, S. Zhong, and L. Yan, “LED: A Large-scale Real-world Paired Dataset for Event Camera Denois- ing,” May 2024, arXiv:2405.19718 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.19718

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Event-Based Feature Extraction Using Adaptive Selection Thresholds,

    S. Afshar, N. Ralph, Y . Xu, J. Tapson, A. v. Schaik, and G. Cohen, “Event-Based Feature Extraction Using Adaptive Selection Thresholds,” Sensors, vol. 20, no. 6, p. 1600, Mar. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/20/6/1600

    2020

  18. [26]

    Feedback control of event cameras,

    T. Delbruck, R. Graca, and M. Paluch, “Feedback control of event cameras,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR) Workshops , June 2021, pp. 1324–1332

    2021

  19. [27]

    Neuromorphic Camera Denoising Using Graph Neural Network- Driven Transformers,

    Y . Alkendi, R. Azzam, A. Ayyad, S. Javed, L. Seneviratne, and Y . Zweiri, “Neuromorphic Camera Denoising Using Graph Neural Network- Driven Transformers,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learning Syst. , vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 4110–4124, Mar

  20. [28]

    E- MLB: Multilevel Benchmark for Event-Based Camera Denoising,

    S. Ding, J. Chen, Y . Wang, Y . Kang, W. Song, J. Cheng, and Y . Cao, “E- MLB: Multilevel Benchmark for Event-Based Camera Denoising,” IEEE Trans. Multimedia , vol. 26, pp. 65–76, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10078400/

    2024

  21. [29]

    A Noise Filter- ing Algorithm for Event-Based Asynchronous Change Detection Image Sensors on TrueNorth and Its Imple- mentation on TrueNorth,

    V . Padala, A. Basu, and G. Orchard, “A Noise Filter- ing Algorithm for Event-Based Asynchronous Change Detection Image Sensors on TrueNorth and Its Imple- mentation on TrueNorth,” Front. Neurosci., vol. 12, p. 118, Mar. 2018. [Online]. Available: http://journal. frontiersin.o...

    2018

  22. [30]

    Probabilis- tic Undirected Graph Based Denoising Method for Dynamic Vision Sensor,

    J. Wu, C. Ma, L. Li, W. Dong, and G. Shi, “Probabilis- tic Undirected Graph Based Denoising Method for Dynamic Vision Sensor,” IEEE Trans. Multimedia , vol. 23, pp. 1148–1159, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9091226/

    2021

  23. [31]

    Event Density Based Denoising Method for Dynamic Vision Sensor,

    Y . Feng, H. Lv, H. Liu, Y . Zhang, Y . Xiao, and C. Han, “Event Density Based Denoising Method for Dynamic Vision Sensor,” Applied Sciences , vol. 10, no. 6, p. 2024, Mar. 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/10/6/2024

    2024

  24. [32]

    HOTS: A Hierarchy of Event-Based Time-Surfaces for Pattern Recognition,

    X. Lagorce, G. Orchard, F. Galluppi, B. E. Shi, and R. B. Benosman, “HOTS: A Hierarchy of Event-Based Time-Surfaces for Pattern Recognition,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 1346–1359, Jul. 2017. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/doc...

    2017

  25. [33]

    EV-Gait: Event-Based Robust Gait Recognition Using Dynamic Vision Sensors,

    Y . Wang, B. Du, Y . Shen, K. Wu, G. Zhao, J. Sun, and H. Wen, “EV-Gait: Event-Based Robust Gait Recognition Using Dynamic Vision Sensors,” in 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). Long Beach, CA, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2019, pp. 6351–6360. [Onli...

    2019

  26. [34]

    Hash- heat: An o (c) complexity hashing-based filter for dy- namic vision sensor,

    S. Guo, Z. Kang, L. Wang, S. Li, and W. Xu, “Hash- heat: An o (c) complexity hashing-based filter for dy- namic vision sensor,” in 2020 25th Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (ASP-DAC) . IEEE, 2020, pp. 452–457

    2020

  27. [35]

    Ebbiot: A low-complexity tracking algorithm for surveillance in iovt using stationary neuromorphic vision sen- sors,

    J. Acharya, A. U. Caycedo, V . R. Padala, R. R. S. Sidhu, G. Orchard, B. Ramesh, and A. Basu, “Ebbiot: A low-complexity tracking algorithm for surveillance in iovt using stationary neuromorphic vision sen- sors,” in 2019 32nd IEEE International System-on- Chip Conference (SOCC...

    2019

  28. [36]

    Ebbinnot: A hardware efficient hybrid event-frame tracker for stationary dynamic vision sensors,

    V . Mohan, D. Singla, T. Pulluri, A. Ussa, P. K. Gopalakrishnan, P.-S. Sun, B. Ramesh, and A. Basu, “Ebbinnot: A hardware efficient hybrid event-frame tracker for stationary dynamic vision sensors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.00422, 2020

    2006 arXiv

  29. [37]

    On-device event filtering with binary neural net- works for pedestrian detection using neuromorphic vi- sion sensors,

    F. Cladera, A. Bisulco, D. Kepple, V . Isler, and D. D. Lee, “On-device event filtering with binary neural net- works for pedestrian detection using neuromorphic vi- sion sensors,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). IEEE, 2020, pp. 3084– 3088

    2020

  30. [38]

    A 51.3-tops/w, 134.4-gops in-memory binary image filtering in 65- nm cmos,

    S. K. Bose, D. Singla, and A. Basu, “A 51.3-tops/w, 134.4-gops in-memory binary image filtering in 65- nm cmos,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits , vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 323–335, 2021

    2021

  31. [39]

    Eventzoom: Learning to denoise and super re- solve neuromorphic events,

    P. Duan, Z. W. Wang, X. Zhou, Y . Ma, and B. Shi, “Eventzoom: Learning to denoise and super re- solve neuromorphic events,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pat- tern Recognition (CVPR) , June 2021, pp. 12 824– 12 833

    2021

  32. [40]

    Low latency event-based filtering and feature extraction for dynamic vision sensors in real-time fpga applications,

    A. Linares-Barranco, F. Perez-Pe ˜na, D. P. Moeys, F. Gomez-Rodriguez, G. Jimenez-Moreno, S.-C. Liu, and T. Delbruck, “Low latency event-based filtering and feature extraction for dynamic vision sensors in real-time fpga applications,” IEEE Access, vol. 7, pp. 134 926–134 942, 2019

    2019

  33. [41]

    Guided Event Filtering: Synergy between Intensity Images and Neuromorphic Events for High Performance Imaging,

    P. Duan, Z. Wang, B. Shi, O. Cossairt, T. Huang, and A. Katsaggelos, “Guided Event Filtering: Synergy between Intensity Images and Neuromorphic Events for High Performance Imaging,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , pp. 1–1, 2021. [Online]. Avail- able: https://ieeexpl...

    2021

  34. [42]

    Approaches for astrometry using event-based sensors,

    G. Cohen, S. Afshar, and A. Van Schaik, “Approaches for astrometry using event-based sensors,” in Ad- vanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance (AMOS) Technologies Conference, 2018, p. 25

    2018

  35. [43]

    Event-based sensing for space situational awareness,

    G. Cohen, S. Afshar, B. Morreale, T. Bessell, A. Wab- nitz, M. Rutten, and A. van Schaik, “Event-based sensing for space situational awareness,” The Journal of the Astronautical Sciences , vol. 66, pp. 125–141, 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Commercial-off-the-shelf event-based cameras for space surveillance applications,

    P. N. McMahon-Crabtree and D. G. Monet, “Commercial-off-the-shelf event-based cameras for space surveillance applications,” Applied Optics , vol. 60, no. 25, pp. G144–G153, 2021

    2021

  37. [45]

    Observational evaluation of event cameras performance in optical space surveil- lance,

    M. Zołnowski, R. Reszelewski, D. P. Moeys, T. Del- bruck, and K. Kami´nski, “Observational evaluation of event cameras performance in optical space surveil- lance,” in NEO and Debris Detection Conference, Darmstadt, Germany, 2019

    2019

  38. [46]

    Astrometric calibra- tion and source characterisation of the latest gener- ation neuromorphic event-based cameras for space imaging,

    N. O. Ralph, A. Marcireau, S. Afshar, N. Tothill, A. Van Schaik, and G. Cohen, “Astrometric calibra- tion and source characterisation of the latest gener- ation neuromorphic event-based cameras for space imaging,” Astrodynamics, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 415–443, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Shake before use: Arti- ficial contrast generation for improved space imaging using neuromorphic event-based vision sensors,

    N. Ralph, D. Maybour, A. Marcireau, I. Jones, A. De Horta, and G. Cohen, “Shake before use: Arti- ficial contrast generation for improved space imaging using neuromorphic event-based vision sensors,” in Proceedings of the Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance (AMOS) Tec...

    2023

  40. [48]

    Real-time event- based unsupervised feature consolidation and tracking for space situational awareness,

    N. Ralph, D. Joubert, A. Jolley, S. Afshar, N. Tothill, A. Van Schaik, and G. Cohen, “Real-time event- based unsupervised feature consolidation and tracking for space situational awareness,” Frontiers in neuro- science, vol. 16, p. 821157, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Event- based sensor multiple hypothesis tracker for space domain awareness,

    R. Oliver, B. McReynolds, and D. Savransky, “Event- based sensor multiple hypothesis tracker for space domain awareness,” in Advanced Maui Optical and Space Surveillance Technologies Conference (AMOS). University of Zurich, 2022

    2022

  42. [50]

    Exploring space situational awareness using neuromorphic event-based cameras,

    N. O. Ralph, “Exploring space situational awareness using neuromorphic event-based cameras,” 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Neuromorphic sensor event- rate monitoring for satellite characterization,

    A. Jolley, S. Afshar, G. Cohen, R. Lazarus Pahla- vani, and A. Lambert, “Neuromorphic sensor event- rate monitoring for satellite characterization,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 753–764, 2023

    2023

  44. [52]

    Evaluation of event-based sensors for satellite mate- rial characterization,

    A. Jolley, G. Cohen, D. Joubert, and A. Lambert, “Evaluation of event-based sensors for satellite mate- rial characterization,”Journal of Spacecraft and Rock- ets, vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 627–636, 2022

    2022

  45. [53]

    Characterising satellites using neuromorphic sensor multicolour broadband event-rates,

    A. Jolley and G. Cohen, “Characterising satellites using neuromorphic sensor multicolour broadband event-rates,” 44th COSPAR Scientific Assembly. Held 16-24 July, vol. 44, p. 3162, 2022

    2022

  46. [54]

    Use of neu- romorphic sensors for satellite material characterisa- tion,

    A. Jolley, G. Cohen, and A. Lambert, “Use of neu- romorphic sensors for satellite material characterisa- tion,” in Imaging Systems and Applications. Optica Publishing Group, 2019, pp. IM1B–4

    2019

  47. [55]

    An event-based vision sensor sim- ulation framework for space domain awareness applications,

    R. Oliver, “An event-based vision sensor sim- ulation framework for space domain awareness applications,” Ph.D. dissertation, ProQuest Disser- tations and Theses, 2024, copyright - Database copyright ProQuest LLC; ProQuest does not claim copyright in the individual underlying ...

    2024

  48. [56]

    Focus is all you need: Loss functions for event-based vi- sion,

    G. Gallego, M. Gehrig, and D. Scaramuzza, “Focus is all you need: Loss functions for event-based vi- sion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2019, pp. 12 280–12 289

    2019

  49. [57]

    Astrometry. net: Blind astrometric cali- bration of arbitrary astronomical images,

    D. Lang, D. W. Hogg, K. Mierle, M. Blanton, and S. Roweis, “Astrometry. net: Blind astrometric cali- bration of arbitrary astronomical images,” The astro- nomical journal, vol. 139, no. 5, p. 1782, 2010

    2010

  50. [58]

    Gaia data re- lease 3-analysis of the gaia bp/rp spectra using the general stellar parameterizer from photometry,

    R. Andrae, M. Fouesneau, R. Sordo, C. Bailer-Jones, T. Dharmawardena, J. Rybizki, F. De Angeli, H. Lind- strøm, D. Marshall, R. Drimmel et al., “Gaia data re- lease 3-analysis of the gaia bp/rp spectra using the general stellar parameterizer from photometry,” As- tronomy & Ast...

    2023

  51. [59]

    Two-line element sets–practice and use,

    D. A. Vallado and P. J. Cefola, “Two-line element sets–practice and use,” in 63rd International Astro- nautical Congress, Naples, Italy, 2012, pp. 1–14

    2012

  52. [60]

    An Optimized Deep Spiking Neural Net- work Architecture Without Gradients,

    Y . Bethi, Y . Xu, G. Cohen, A. Van Schaik, and S. Afshar, “An Optimized Deep Spiking Neural Net- work Architecture Without Gradients,” IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 97 912–97 929, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9864144/

    2022

  53. [61]

    Synthesis of neural networks for spatio- temporal spike pattern recognition and processing,

    J. C. Tapson, G. K. Cohen, S. Afshar, K. M. Stiefel, Y . Buskila, R. M. Wang, T. J. Hamilton, and A. van Schaik, “Synthesis of neural networks for spatio- temporal spike pattern recognition and processing,” Frontiers in neuroscience, vol. 7, p. 153, 2013

    2013

  54. [62]

    Neuromorphic perception for greenhouse technology using event-based sensors,

    S. El Arja, “Neuromorphic perception for greenhouse technology using event-based sensors,” 2022

    2022

  55. [63]

    Spatial and temporal down- sampling in event-based visual classification,

    G. Cohen, S. Afshar, G. Orchard, J. Tapson, R. Benos- man, and A. van Schaik, “Spatial and temporal down- sampling in event-based visual classification,” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Sys- tems, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 5030–5044, 2018

    2018

  56. [64]

    Online and adaptive pseudoinverse solutions for ELM weights,

    A. Van Schaik and J. Tapson, “Online and adaptive pseudoinverse solutions for ELM weights,” Neu- rocomputing, vol. 149, pp. 233–238, Feb. 2015. [Online]. Available: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S0925231214011485

    2015

  57. [65]

    Within-Camera multilayer perceptron DVS denoising,

    A. R. Navaro, S. Guo, A. Gnaneswaran, K. Vijayaku- mar, A. L. Barranco, T. Aarrestad, R. Kastner, and T. Delbruck, “Within-Camera multilayer perceptron DVS denoising,” in 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), 2023

    2023

  58. [66]

    Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,

    C. R. Qi, H. Su, K. Mo, and L. J. Guibas, “Pointnet: Deep learning on point sets for 3d classification and segmentation,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 652–660

    2017

  59. [67]

    An fpga implementation of an event-driven unsupervised feature extraction algorithm for pattern recognition,

    P. C. Jose, Y . Xu, A. Van Schaik, and R. Wang, “An fpga implementation of an event-driven unsupervised feature extraction algorithm for pattern recognition,” in 2024 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS). IEEE, 2024, pp. 1–5

    2024

  60. [68]

    An optimized multi-layer spiking neural network im- plementation in fpga without multipliers,

    A. Mehrabi, Y . Bethi, A. van Schaik, and S. Afshar, “An optimized multi-layer spiking neural network im- plementation in fpga without multipliers,” Procedia Computer Science, vol. 222, pp. 407–414, 2023

    2023

  61. [69]

    Efficient implementation of a multi-layer gradient-free online-trainable spiking neural network on fpga,

    A. Mehrabi, Y . Bethi, A. van Schaik, A. Wabnitz, and S. Afshar, “Efficient implementation of a multi-layer gradient-free online-trainable spiking neural network on fpga,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.19468, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  62. [2020]

    Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ document/9142352/

    [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ document/9142352/

  63. [2024]

    Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ document/9893571/

    [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/ document/9893571/

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.