Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 43 references

EvTTC: An Event Camera Dataset for Time-to-Collision Estimation

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces EvTTC, the first event-camera dataset built for time-to-collision estimation in high-relative-speed, emergency-braking driving scenarios, with LiDAR/GNSS ground truth and an open small-scale testbed.

desk verdict Useful first event-camera TTC dataset under emergency braking, but ground-truth accuracy needs validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05053 v3 pith:JD6YITLX submitted 2024-12-06 cs.RO cs.CV

Kaizhen Sun , Jinghang Li , Kuan Dai , Bangyan Liao , Wei Xiong , Yi Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords eventcameratime-to-collisionestimationautonomousdrivingdatasetforwardcollisionwarningemergencybrakingLiDAR-INSgroundtruthevent-basedvisionbenchmarksmall-scaletestbed
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 is building a benchmark: it claims that before EvTTC no public multi-sensor dataset paired event cameras with emergency-braking scenarios for time-to-collision estimation, and that this gap blocks progress on forward-collision-warning systems that need microsecond-level response. It supplies synchronized RGB, event, LiDAR, and GNSS/INS recordings of car-to-car and car-to-pedestrian approaches, with ground-truth TTC computed from the ratio of depth to relative speed. It also provides an open-source small-scale testbed for cheap, controlled collision experiments. If the dataset works as claimed, it gives the event-camera community a common evaluation ground for TTC methods in the extreme cases where frame-based cameras are weakest.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the EvTTC dataset itself: a hardware-synchronized sensor suite with two RGB-event camera pairs (8-mm and 16-mm lenses), a Livox LiDAR, and dual GNSS/INS units, covering Euro NCAP AEB car-to-car and car-to-pedestrian scenarios. Event cameras are the sensors that asynchronously report per-pixel brightness changes at microsecond resolution, which is what the paper argues gives them an advantage over frame-based cameras in sudden braking cases. The identity that defines ground truth is TTC = Z / Vrel, where Z is the target depth in the camera frame and Vrel is the relative speed along the optical axis; Z comes from LiDAR-inertial odometry (FAST-LIO2) with hidden-point removal, and Vrel comes from GNSS/INS at 100 Hz. The synchronization scheme, PTP/gPTP plus micro-controller trigger pulses at 20 Hz, is what ties the sensors' timestamps together. The small-scale testbed adds a linear rail, motor encoder, and beam-splitter optical system as a second, repeatable source of ground-truth TTC.

What would settle it

Set up a repeating emergency-braking run with a stationary target at known distance and instrumented speed, and compare the dataset's published TTC values against an independent reference computed from a high-rate motion-capture system and mechanical encoder; also measure the actual trigger-to-event timestamp offset via an electrical pulse injected into all sensors. If the TTC deviation grows with relative speed in a way consistent with a fixed time offset, the synchronization assumption is disproven.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's contribution is a new dataset and benchmark rather than a new TTC algorithm. The central claim is that EvTTC fills the missing piece in TTC research: a public, multi-sensor event-camera dataset whose sequences are designed around the high-relative-speed emergency-braking scenarios that frame-based ADAS cameras handle poorly. Ground-truth TTC is defined directly by TTC = Z/Vrel, with depth from LiDAR and relative velocity from GNSS/INS, and every sequence carries depth, pose, and 2D bounding-box annotations. The dataset also comes with a small-scale testbed that generates quasi-real collision data at controlled speeds. The reported benchmark shows existing event-based TTC methods achieving errors mostly in the single-digit to tens-of-percent range on these sequences.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the sub-microsecond synchronization and LiDAR odometry align all measurements closely enough that depth Z and relative speed Vrel are measured at the same instant, with any misalignment or drift being negligible in the high-relative-speed cases where small time offsets produce large TTC errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Event-based TTC algorithms can now be evaluated under emergency-braking conditions with ground-truth TTC values, not just on normal-driving scenes or synthetic data.
  • The benchmark gives a direct numerical comparison of six TTC estimators, so a method's accuracy and runtime on high-relative-speed sequences become a public, repeatable result.
  • The small-scale testbed lowers the cost of testing and augmenting TTC algorithms before full-scale vehicle experiments, while still providing precise motor-encoder ground truth.
  • Because the suite includes RGB, event, LiDAR, and GNSS/INS streams, the same scenarios support future multi-sensor fusion work for forward collision warning.
  • The scenario design follows Euro NCAP AEB test protocols, so results on EvTTC relate directly to the kinds of tests used in vehicle safety assessment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • By releasing per-event timestamps alongside ground-truth TTC, the dataset could be used to compute a latency-aware metric such as the latest sensor time at which a correct TTC estimate is still available, a step the paper does not take.
  • The high-speed cases make the ground truth sensitive to synchronization offset, so a natural robustness check is to recompute TTC under deliberately shifted timestamps and report error growth; this would show how much of the benchmark results depends on the sync claim.
  • The 1:24 scale testbed and motor-encoder ground truth could be used for controlled studies of event-camera latency in TTC estimation, since the linear rail provides a repeatable trajectory with known ground truth.
  • The benchmark's frame-based FoE baseline performs well in several sequences; an extension the authors do not explore is measuring how much worse it becomes as frame rate is lowered, which would quantify the latency advantage of event cameras.
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. The paper introduces EvTTC, a multi-sensor dataset for time-to-collision estimation with event cameras, targeting high-relative-speed and emergency-braking driving scenarios. The sensor suite comprises two rigidly paired RGB/event camera rigs with 8-mm and 16-mm lenses, a Livox HAP LiDAR, and two GNSS/INS units. Ground-truth TTC is defined as TTC = Z/Vrel, where Z is the target depth from LiDAR point clouds (accumulated with FAST-LIO2 poses) and Vrel is the relative velocity from GNSS/INS. The dataset includes car-to-car and car-to-pedestrian sequences based on Euro NCAP AEB test protocols, plus 2D bounding boxes and depth maps. A small-scale linear-rail testbed with a 1:24 vehicle model is described as a low-cost complement. A benchmark evaluates six TTC estimation methods (including the authors' STRTTC) on selected sequences and the testbed.

Significance. If the ground-truth quality claims are substantiated, EvTTC would fill a clear gap: existing event-camera driving datasets (MVSEC, DSEC, ViViD++, M3ED) lack collision-focused, high-relative-speed scenarios with TTC ground truth. The open-sourced testbed and benchmark are useful community assets, and the use of independent sensors (LiDAR, GNSS/INS) rather than self-generated labels for TTC ground truth is a meaningful strength. The scenario design follows established Euro NCAP protocols, and the paper includes reproducible benchmark code and results. The main weakness is that the accuracy of the central ground-truth TTC is asserted rather than demonstrated; no measured synchronization error or odometry-drift validation is reported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV-B, Eq. (1), Table III] The ground-truth TTC is defined as TTC = Z/Vrel, which is the time to collision under a constant relative speed. However, the scenario parameters in Table III include a braking phase ΔT2 lasting up to 5.5 s, and the abstract and introduction emphasize 'emergency braking' with 'rapid decrease in vehicle speed.' During the braking phase Vrel is not constant, so the actual collision time under the recorded deceleration profile differs from Z/Vrel. The authors should clarify whether the ground-truth TTC is intentionally the instantaneous constant-velocity TTC (as the introduction's 'under their current speed' suggests) or the true collision time under continued braking, and, if the former, justify its use for AEB/FCW benchmarking or provide the deceleration profile so users can compute the latter. This is load-bearing because all benchmark eTTC errors are computed against this definition.
  2. [Sec. III-B and Sec. IV-B] The paper claims sub-microsecond synchronization via PTP/gPTP and uses FAST-LIO2 poses to accumulate LiDAR point clouds for depth, but it provides no measured end-to-end synchronization error between the LiDAR points, the GNSS/INS samples, and the camera/event exposures, and no evaluation of FAST-LIO2 drift on these sequences. At the reported relative speeds (up to 70.4 km/h) and small ground-truth TTC values (near 1 s), a few milliseconds of temporal misalignment or a few centimeters of depth drift would produce TTC errors on the same order as the best benchmark eTTC values (e.g., 2.56% for CMax on CCRs1-low). The accuracy of the ground-truth TTC is therefore conditional on unverified assumptions. The authors should add a synchronization validation (e.g., a controlled LED flash or comparison of the 20 Hz trigger pulses with observed event timestamps) and an odometry drift check by comparing FAST-LIO2 poses with the RTK GNSS/INS trajectory over each sequence.
  3. [Sec. IV-B, 'Pose and Depth'] The exact data flow from raw LiDAR and GNSS/INS measurements to the scalar Z and Vrel used in Eq. (1) is underspecified. The text says that the position of a stationary target is determined by measuring the distance using LiDAR, but the subsequent paragraph describes generating dense depth maps by accumulating velocity-compensated point clouds with FAST-LIO2 and applying Hidden Point Removal, then projecting into the camera coordinate frame. It is unclear whether the target-specific Z in Eq. (1) is taken from a single LiDAR return, the accumulated depth map at the target's 2D bounding box, or some other selection, and which timestamp is associated with Z and Vrel. A precise description of this pipeline (including the coordinate frame and the temporal alignment of Z and Vrel) is needed for the ground-truth generation to be reproducible and for users to assess its accuracy.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table I] The 'Detection Range [m]' entries for EvTTC ([160-295] and [99-197]) are not defined in Table II or the text; please clarify what these ranges represent (e.g., object detection range of the camera pair? LiDAR range?) and how they were measured.
  2. [Sec. II.3] The sentence 'hardware triggered synchronization is not witnessed' for ViViD++ should be rephrased, e.g., 'hardware-triggered synchronization is not reported.'
  3. [Sec. III-B] The description 'These pulses are used to simultaneously trigger the two RGB cameras and the two event cameras' is unclear because event cameras are asynchronous sensors; clarify whether the pulses are used to timestamp the event streams or to trigger a reset/external signal, and report the measured pulse-to-pulse jitter.
  4. [Sec. IV-B, Eq. (1)] Please define the sign convention for Vrel: is it positive when the target is approaching, and is the TTC always positive? Also specify whether Z is the depth of the collision target in the 8-mm RGB camera frame, which appears to be the reference frame, or the event camera frame.
  5. [Sec. VI, Table V] The runtime for ETTCM is described as the product of per-event computation time and total event count; this should be stated directly in the table caption or in the text preceding the table for clarity.
  6. [Sec. VI] The benchmark includes the authors' own method STRTTC, which achieves the best or second-best results on most sequences. This is acceptable for a dataset paper, but the text should state whether the authors ran all methods or whether the results were independently reproduced, and note any potential bias in the methodology or parameter tuning.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: ground-truth TTC derives from independent LiDAR/GNSS-INS measurements, and the only self-citation (STRTTC benchmark entry) is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is the release of a dataset and benchmark, not a derived scientific prediction. Ground-truth TTC in Eq. (1) is TTC = Z / Vrel, where Z is LiDAR-derived depth and Vrel is GNSS/INS velocity. These sensors are independent of the event and frame cameras whose outputs the benchmark algorithms consume, so the benchmark does not reduce to the inputs of the evaluated methods. No parameter is fitted to a subset and then reported as a prediction. The benchmark includes STRTTC [32], a prior method by some of the same authors, and it performs well; however, the dataset's validity does not depend on STRTTC's accuracy, and the comparison is made against multiple independent baselines (CMax, ETTCM, FAITH, AEB-Tracker, Image's FoE). The small-scale testbed computes ground-truth TTC from motor-encoder velocity and displacement, which is again independent of the optical sensors. The main weakness is that sub-microsecond synchronization is asserted from the PTP/gPTP standard rather than measured end-to-end, and FAST-LIO2 odometry drift is not independently validated on these sequences; this is a real accuracy/validation concern for the ground-truth TTC, but it is not a circularity because the computation is not defined in terms of the quantities being evaluated and no result is forced by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on measured data, not fitted parameters. No free parameters are introduced: ground-truth TTC is computed directly from LiDAR and GNSS/INS measurements. The main unresolved assumptions are the temporal alignment of the sensors, the accuracy of the LiDAR-based depth, and the validity of the constant-relative-speed TTC model during braking. No new physical entities are posited.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption TTC is computed as Z/Vrel where Z is depth along the optical axis and Vrel is relative longitudinal speed (Eq. 1); the relative speed is assumed constant during the approach.
    Used in Sec. IV-B.1 to define ground-truth TTC; neglects acceleration during the braking phases (Delta T2), which are present in the scenarios.
  • domain assumption The PTP/gPTP and hardware trigger scheme achieves sub-microsecond synchronization across cameras, LiDAR, and GNSS/INS as claimed.
    Stated in Sec. III-B but not experimentally validated; ground-truth TTC accuracy depends on temporal alignment of depth and velocity.
  • domain assumption FAST-LIO2 LiDAR odometry and Hidden Point Removal provide drift-free, occlusion-free ground-truth depth when projected to camera frames.
    Used in Sec. IV-B.2; no quantitative accuracy assessment of the depth ground truth against an independent reference is presented.
  • domain assumption The small-scale testbed (1:24 model, linear rail up to 1.5 m/s) produces event data whose TTC information content is representative of full-scale vehicle scenarios.
    Invoked in Sec. V; scale-invariance of TTC under uniform scaling of distances and speeds is assumed, not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EvTTC: An Event Camera Dataset for Time-to-Collision Estimation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JD6YITLX

@misc{pith2026241205053,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EvTTC: An Event Camera Dataset for Time-to-Collision Estimation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JD6YITLX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05053}
}
read the original abstract

Time-to-Collision (TTC) estimation lies in the core of the forward collision warning (FCW) functionality, which is key to all Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) systems. Although the success of solutions using frame-based cameras (e.g., Mobileye's solutions) has been witnessed in normal situations, some extreme cases, such as the sudden variation in the relative speed of leading vehicles and the sudden appearance of pedestrians, still pose significant risks that cannot be handled. This is due to the inherent imaging principles of frame-based cameras, where the time interval between adjacent exposures introduces considerable system latency to AEB. Event cameras, as a novel bio-inspired sensor, offer ultra-high temporal resolution and can asynchronously report brightness changes at the microsecond level. To explore the potential of event cameras in the above-mentioned challenging cases, we propose EvTTC, which is, to the best of our knowledge, the first multi-sensor dataset focusing on TTC tasks under high-relative-speed scenarios. EvTTC consists of data collected using standard cameras and event cameras, covering various potential collision scenarios in daily driving and involving multiple collision objects. Additionally, LiDAR and GNSS/INS measurements are provided for the calculation of ground-truth TTC. Considering the high cost of testing TTC algorithms on full-scale mobile platforms, we also provide a small-scale TTC testbed for experimental validation and data augmentation. All the data and the design of the testbed are open sourced, and they can serve as a benchmark that will facilitate the development of vision-based TTC techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05053 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Left: An overview of the data collection setup. Right: The top image shows a bird’s-eye view of the vehicle on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Illustration of our synchronization scheme. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the CAD model of the sensor suite. The axes of all sensors are labeled and color-coded as follows: red for X, green for Y, and blue for Z. camera pair using 8-mm lens consists of an RGB camera and an event camera, and it covers the close sensing range (see A in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The top-view schematic of the dataset scenarios. The arrow represents the direction of movement. The lateral shadowing of the DCV in the CCRs and CCRm scenarios indicates that data are collected across different lane positions. The objects in the scene include the Glob…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Illustration of real-world road scenes in our dataset. The top of the first and second rows respectively shows the RGB images for each scenario, while the bottom of the first and second rows respectively presents the accumulated event data for each scenario. The ground…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Parameter definitions in TTC Scenar￾ios. ∆T1(s): duration at constant speed, ∆T2(s): braking duration, D1(m): distance to the colli￾sion target when the DCV reaches maximum speed, D2(m): distance to the collision target at braking onset. Seq. Name Vrel Tier ∥Vrel∥max(k…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: From left to right: the small-scale TTC testbed, the assembly diagram, and the layout of the hybrid optical system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Predicting the driver’s focus of attention: the dr (eye) ve project,

    A. Palazzi, D. Abati, F. Solera, R. Cucchiara, et al. , “Predicting the driver’s focus of attention: the dr (eye) ve project,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence , vol. 41, no. 7, pp. 1720– 1733, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Dada-2000: Can driving accident be predicted by driver attentionƒ analyzed by a benchmark,

    J. Fang, D. Yan, J. Qiao, J. Xue, H. Wang, and S. Li, “Dada-2000: Can driving accident be predicted by driver attentionƒ analyzed by a benchmark,” in 2019 IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Confer- ence (ITSC). IEEE, 2019, pp. 4303–4309

    work page 2000

  3. [3]

    Crash to not crash: Learn to identify dangerous vehicles using a simulator,

    H. Kim, K. Lee, G. Hwang, and C. Suh, “Crash to not crash: Learn to identify dangerous vehicles using a simulator,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 33, no. 01, 2019, pp. 978–985

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    TSTTC: A Large-Scale Dataset for Time-to-Contact Estimation in Driving Scenarios

    Y . Shi, Z. Huang, Y . Yan, N. Wang, and X. Guo, “Tsttc: A large- scale dataset for time-to-contact estimation in driving scenarios,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01539, 2023

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    The multivehicle stereo event camera dataset: An event camera dataset for 3d perception,

    A. Z. Zhu, D. Thakur, T. ¨Ozaslan, B. Pfrommer, V . Kumar, and K. Daniilidis, “The multivehicle stereo event camera dataset: An event camera dataset for 3d perception,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 2032–2039, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    Dsec: A stereo event camera dataset for driving scenarios,

    M. Gehrig, W. Aarents, D. Gehrig, and D. Scaramuzza, “Dsec: A stereo event camera dataset for driving scenarios,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2021

    2021

  7. [7]

    Vivid++: Vision for visibility dataset,

    A. J. Lee, Y . Cho, Y .-s. Shin, A. Kim, and H. Myung, “Vivid++: Vision for visibility dataset,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 6282–6289, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    M3ed: Multi-robot, multi-sensor, multi-environment event dataset,

    K. Chaney, F. Cladera, Z. Wang, A. Bisulco, M. A. Hsieh, C. Kor- pela, V . Kumar, C. J. Taylor, and K. Daniilidis, “M3ed: Multi-robot, multi-sensor, multi-environment event dataset,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 4015–4022

    work page 2023

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Effectiveness of forward collision warning and au- tonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates,

    J. B. Cicchino, “Effectiveness of forward collision warning and au- tonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates,” Accident Analysis & Prevention , vol. 99, pp. 142–152, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Effectiveness of low speed au- tonomous emergency braking in real-world rear-end crashes,

    B. Fildes, M. Keall, N. Bos, A. Lie, Y . Page, C. Pastor, L. Pennisi, M. Rizzi, P. Thomas, and C. Tingvall, “Effectiveness of low speed au- tonomous emergency braking in real-world rear-end crashes,” Accident Analysis & Prevention , vol. 81, pp. 24–29, 2015

    2015

  3. [11]

    Evaluation of rear-end collision avoidance technologies based on real world crash data,

    I. Isaksson-Hellman and M. Lindman, “Evaluation of rear-end collision avoidance technologies based on real world crash data,” Proceedings of the Future Active Safety Technology Towards zero traffic accidents (FASTzero), Gothenburg, Sweden, pp. 9–11, 2015

    2015

  4. [12]

    Injury crash reduction of low-speed autonomous emergency braking (aeb) on passenger cars,

    M. Rizzi, A. Kullgren, and C. Tingvall, “Injury crash reduction of low-speed autonomous emergency braking (aeb) on passenger cars,” in International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Injury (IRCOBI 2014). International Research Council on the Biomechanics of Injury, 2014...

    2014

  5. [13]

    Autonomous emergency breaking (aeb) evaluation for indian traffic scenarios using gps and lidar data,

    M. Gawande, P. Rajalakshmi, et al., “Autonomous emergency breaking (aeb) evaluation for indian traffic scenarios using gps and lidar data,” in 2022 IEEE IAS Global Conference on Emerging Technologies (Glob- ConET). IEEE, 2022, pp. 655–660

    2022

  6. [14]

    Efficient time-to-collision estimation for a braking supervision system with lidar,

    M. Bosnak and I. Skrjanc, “Efficient time-to-collision estimation for a braking supervision system with lidar,” in 2017 3rd IEEE International Conference on Cybernetics (CYBCONF) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–6

    2017

  7. [15]

    Camera and lidar sensor fusion for 3d object tracking in a collision avoidance system,

    M. Kotur, N. Luki ´c, M. Kruni ´c, and ˇZ. Luka ˇc, “Camera and lidar sensor fusion for 3d object tracking in a collision avoidance system,” in 2021 Zooming Innovation in Consumer Technologies Conference (ZINC). IEEE, 2021, pp. 198–202

    2021

  8. [16]

    Detection mechanism for vehicle collision avoidance using mmwave radar,

    K. Venkatesha, A. Vengadarajan, and U. Singh, “Detection mechanism for vehicle collision avoidance using mmwave radar,” in 2023 IEEE In- ternational Conference on Electronics, Computing and Communication Technologies (CONECCT). IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  9. [17]

    Forward collision warning with a single camera,

    E. Dagan, O. Mano, G. P. Stein, and A. Shashua, “Forward collision warning with a single camera,” in IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium,

  10. [18]

    Estimation of time-to-collision maps from first order motion models and normal flows,

    F. Meyer and P. Bouthemy, “Estimation of time-to-collision maps from first order motion models and normal flows,” in 1992 11th IAPR Inter- national Conference on Pattern Recognition , vol. 1. IEEE Computer Society, 1992, pp. 78–82

    1992

  11. [19]

    Real-time time- to-collision from variation of intrinsic scale,

    A. Negre, C. Braillon, J. L. Crowley, and C. Laugier, “Real-time time- to-collision from variation of intrinsic scale,” in Experimental Robotics: The 10th International Symposium on Experimental Robotics. Springer, 2008, pp. 75–84

    2008

  12. [20]

    Monocular obstacle avoidance for blind people using probabilistic focus of expansion esti- mation,

    S. Stabinger, A. Rodriguez-Sanchez, and J. Piater, “Monocular obstacle avoidance for blind people using probabilistic focus of expansion esti- mation,” in 2016 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–9

    2016

  13. [21]

    Dynamic obstacle avoid- ance for quadrotors with event cameras,

    D. Falanga, K. Kleber, and D. Scaramuzza, “Dynamic obstacle avoid- ance for quadrotors with event cameras,”Science Robotics, vol. 5, no. 40, p. eaaz9712, 2020

    2020

  14. [22]

    Real-time visual- inertial odometry for event cameras using keyframe-based nonlinear optimization,

    H. Rebecq, T. Horstschaefer, and D. Scaramuzza, “Real-time visual- inertial odometry for event cameras using keyframe-based nonlinear optimization,” 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Event-based visual inertial velometer,

    X. Lu, Y . Zhou, and S. Shen, “Event-based visual inertial velometer,” Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS) , 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    Low-latency automotive vision with event cameras,

    D. Gehrig and D. Scaramuzza, “Low-latency automotive vision with event cameras,” Nature, vol. 629, no. 8014, pp. 1034–1040, 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Asynchronous visual event-based time-to-contact,

    X. Clady, C. Clercq, S.-H. Ieng, F. Houseini, M. Randazzo, L. Natale, C. Bartolozzi, and R. Benosman, “Asynchronous visual event-based time-to-contact,” Frontiers in neuroscience, vol. 8, p. 9, 2014

    2014

  18. [26]

    Neuromorphic control for optic-flow-based landing of mavs using the loihi processor,

    J. Dupeyroux, J. J. Hagenaars, F. Paredes-Vall ´es, and G. C. de Croon, “Neuromorphic control for optic-flow-based landing of mavs using the loihi processor,” in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 96–102

    2021

  19. [27]

    Faith: Fast iterative half-plane focus of expansion estimation using optic flow,

    R. Dinaux, N. Wessendorp, J. Dupeyroux, and G. C. De Croon, “Faith: Fast iterative half-plane focus of expansion estimation using optic flow,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 7627–7634, 2021

    2021

  20. [28]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE confer- ence on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 3867–3876

    2018

  21. [29]

    A fast geometric regularizer to mitigate event collapse in the contrast maximization framework,

    S. Shiba, Y . Aoki, and G. Gallego, “A fast geometric regularizer to mitigate event collapse in the contrast maximization framework,” Advanced Intelligent Systems , vol. 5, no. 3, p. 2200251, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Time-to-contact map by joint estimation of up-to-scale inverse depth and global motion using a single event camera,

    U. M. Nunes, L. U. Perrinet, and S.-H. Ieng, “Time-to-contact map by joint estimation of up-to-scale inverse depth and global motion using a single event camera,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2023, pp. 23 653–23 663

    2023

  23. [31]

    Robust event-based vision model estima- tion by dispersion minimisation,

    U. M. Nunes and Y . Demiris, “Robust event-based vision model estima- tion by dispersion minimisation,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 44, no. 12, pp. 9561–9573, 2021

    2021

  24. [32]

    Event-aided time-to- collision estimation for autonomous driving,

    J. Li, B. Liao, X. Lu, P. Liu, S. Shen, and Y . Zhou, “Event-aided time-to- collision estimation for autonomous driving,” in European Conference on Computer Vision . Springer, 2025, pp. 57–73

    2025

  25. [33]

    Asynchronous blob tracker for event cameras,

    Z. Wang, T. Molloy, P. van Goor, and R. Mahony, “Asynchronous blob tracker for event cameras,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measure- ment and Control Systems,

    IEEE Std 1588-2019 (Revision of IEEE Std 1588-2008), “IEEE Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol for Networked Measure- ment and Control Systems,” pp. 1–499, 2020

    2019

  27. [35]

    IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks–Timing and Syn- chronization for Time-Sensitive Applications,

    IEEE Std 802.1AS-2020 (Revision of IEEE Std 802.1AS-2011), “IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks–Timing and Syn- chronization for Time-Sensitive Applications,” pp. 1–421, 2020

    2020

  28. [36]

    Unified temporal and spatial calibration for multi-sensor systems,

    P. Furgale, J. Rehder, and R. Siegwart, “Unified temporal and spatial calibration for multi-sensor systems,” in 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . IEEE, 2013, pp. 1280– 1286

    2013

  29. [37]

    Opencalib: A multi- sensor calibration toolbox for autonomous driving,

    G. Yan, Z. Liu, C. Wang, C. Shi, P. Wei, X. Cai, T. Ma, Z. Liu, Z. Zhong, Y . Liu, M. Zhao, Z. Ma, and Y . Li, “Opencalib: A multi- sensor calibration toolbox for autonomous driving,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.14087, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Euro ncap aeb c2c test protocol - v4.3.1,

    E. NCAP, “Euro ncap aeb c2c test protocol - v4.3.1,”

  31. [39]

    Fast-lio2: Fast direct lidar- inertial odometry,

    W. Xu, Y . Cai, D. He, J. Lin, and F. Zhang, “Fast-lio2: Fast direct lidar- inertial odometry,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2053–2073, 2022

    2022

  32. [40]

    Direct visibility of point sets,

    S. Katz, A. Tal, and R. Basri, “Direct visibility of point sets,” in ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 papers , 2007, pp. 24–es

    2007

  33. [41]

    Event-aided direct sparse odometry,

    J. Hidalgo-Carri ´o, G. Gallego, and D. Scaramuzza, “Event-aided direct sparse odometry,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2022, pp. 5781–5790. SUN et al.: EVTTC 9 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL The figure below demonstrates detail...

    2022

  34. [2004]

    IEEE, 2004, pp. 37–42

    2004

  35. [2024]

    Available: https://www.euroncap.com/media/80155/ euro-ncap-aeb-c2c-test-protocol-v431.pdf

    [Online]. Available: https://www.euroncap.com/media/80155/ euro-ncap-aeb-c2c-test-protocol-v431.pdf

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.