Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 81 references

EvRepSL: Event-Stream Representation via Self-Supervised Learning for Event-Based Vision

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 A frozen network trained on frame-event pairs lifts event-camera vision performance across tasks and sensors without fine-tuning.

desk verdict A useful empirical recipe with a shaky mechanistic story: the frozen representation enhancer works, but the paper overclaims what the learned channels encode. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07080 v1 pith:7HUQMZRH submitted 2024-12-10 cs.CV cs.AIcs.MM

Qiang Qu , Xiaoming Chen , Yuk Ying Chung , Yiran Shen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AIcs.MM
keywords eventcameraevent-streamrepresentationself-supervisedlearningopticalflowestimationobjectclassificationneuromorphicvisiondynamicsensor
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

The paper tries to establish that noisy event-camera streams can be made more useful for downstream vision tasks not by filtering individual events, but by learning a representation enhancer from the physical relationship between event streams and ordinary video frames. It introduces a three-channel statistical representation, EvRep, derives a closed-form relation between events and frames, and trains a network, RepGen, to predict the next video frame from the current frame and the event stream. Once trained, RepGen is frozen and converts any event stream into an enhanced representation, EvRepSL, that improves classification accuracy and optical flow estimation across several cameras and datasets without retraining. The practical stake is that event-based vision could gain a drop-in, sensor-agnostic representation that does not require per-task fine-tuning.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is the frame-event relation $f_{t1} = \exp(\theta \cdot E_I) \cdot (f_{t0} + k) - k$, derived from the event camera principle that each event marks a threshold crossing of log-intensity change, together with a linear model between intensity and normalized frames. RepGen is a W-shaped encoder-decoder network with a shared encoder, two decoders that estimate the refined integral channel $\hat{E}_I^{\mathrm{rfd}}$ and the pixel-wise contrast threshold $\hat{\theta}$, and a final module that computes the predicted frame. Training uses only mean absolute error between the predicted and actual next frame, so no labels are required. After training, the relation module is discarded and the frozen network maps EvRep to EvRepSL.

What would settle it

Measure the per-pixel contrast thresholds of a DAVIS camera under controlled intensity steps and compare them with the $\hat{\theta}$ channel that RepGen outputs for the same scenes: if the predicted thresholds disagree systematically while the performance gains persist, the gains may come from incidental network features rather than the proposed frame-event relation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that after self-supervised training on a hybrid frame-event dataset, the frozen representation generator RepGen becomes a device- and task-agnostic enhancer: input event streams converted to EvRepSL improve classification and optical flow estimation across ATIS, DVS128, DAVIS240C, and DAVIS346 cameras without fine-tuning or retraining. EvRepSL consists of the original three statistical channels (event count, event polarity integral, and temporal standard deviation) plus two learned channels: a refined event integral and a per-pixel contrast threshold. The learned channels come from training RepGen to minimize the error of predicting the next APS frame from the current frame and the event-derived integral, using the derived relation $f_{t1} = \exp(\theta \cdot E_I) \cdot (f_{t0} + k) - k$. The paper reports that this representation outperforms prior hand-crafted and learned representations on five classification datasets and on sparse and dense optical flow benchmarks, with the largest gains on the more challenging datasets such as CIFAR10-DVS and N-Caltech101.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation of the frame-event relation assumes that each pixel has a constant contrast threshold $\theta$ over the interval between two frames and that events are exact threshold crossings, so that $\theta \cdot E_I$ equals the log-intensity change, even though the paper itself lists noise types that break this assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • EvRepSL can be plugged into existing CNN pipelines for classification and optical flow as a formatted tensor, with no retraining of the representation generator.
  • The same frozen RepGen improves results across event cameras with different resolutions and noise characteristics, indicating that the learned enhancement transfers across sensors.
  • The learned per-pixel contrast threshold channel may benefit other event-based tasks that rely on threshold calibration, such as visual odometry or depth estimation.
  • Because EvRepSL is a structured tensor, it is compatible with conventional deep learning models, not only the lightweight classifiers and flow networks used in the paper.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the frame-prediction objective is what drives the improvement, the same recipe could transfer to other paired sensor modalities, such as events paired with depth or intensity from other sources.
  • The authors only train RepGen on one hybrid dataset (IJRR); if the learned enhancement scales with more diverse training scenes and cameras, performance on unseen sensors could improve further.
  • A control experiment using randomly initialized or fixed threshold channels, rather than the learned $\hat{\theta}$, would separate the contribution of the physical relation from the contribution of simply adding extra learned channels.
  • The reported gains might partly come from the extra learned channels increasing model capacity rather than from the specifically derived frame-event relation; testing against a representation with two generic learned channels would clarify the mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes EvRep, a three-channel event-stream representation (event count EC, polarity integral EI, and temporal standard deviation ET), and a self-supervised representation generator RepGen. RepGen is trained on the IJRR hybrid frame-event dataset to predict the next video frame from the current frame and the EvRep statistics, using a derived relation f1 = exp(θ·EI)·(f0+k) − k. The two learned outputs, a refined integral channel and a per-pixel threshold channel, are appended to EvRep to form EvRepSL. The frozen RepGen is then applied to event-only datasets for classification (five datasets) and optical flow (MVSEC), with claims of device- and task-agnostic enhancement requiring no fine-tuning.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would offer a practically valuable result: a single frozen representation enhancer that transfers across event cameras and downstream tasks. The same-network comparisons across representations (Tables II, IV, V) are a genuine strength, as is the public code release and the breadth of evaluation datasets. However, the mechanistic interpretation of the learned channels is not currently supported by the evidence, and the absence of uncertainty estimates makes the empirical margins difficult to judge. The core idea is worth pursuing, but the paper needs additional validation and reporting before the claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III-B2, Eq. (16)-(17)] The training objective depends only on the product θ̂·ÊI_rfd; any pair (θ̂, ÊI_rfd) with the same product yields the same predicted frame. With the ReLU constraint on θ̂, the network can drive θ̂ toward zero on slow or static intervals and compensate with arbitrarily large ÊI_rfd values. The paper provides no regularization, auxiliary loss, or direct validation to ensure that θ̂ corresponds to per-pixel contrast thresholds or that ÊI_rfd is a denoised event integral. Consequently, the claim in Sec. IV-G that 'accurate pixel-wise contrast threshold estimations contribute to its superior performance' is unsupported. Please add a held-out validation of the physical relation: compare θ̂·ÊI_rfd to log((f1+k)/(f0+k)) on IJRR pairs, and report the distributions or correlations of θ̂ and ÊI_rfd separately. Without such evidence, the empirical gains could arise from two high-capacity incidental channels rather than the proposed mechanism.
  2. [Sec. III-B1, Eq. (9)-(12)] The derivation assumes that every event is an exact threshold crossing (d_i = sign_i·θ_i) and that no events are missing or spurious. This conflicts with the four noise types the paper itself catalogs in Sec. II.A: background activity, holes, stochastic arrival time, and stochastic event counts. Under these noise types, EI is a noisy count, and the equality θ·EI = log(I_n/I_0) does not hold exactly on real data. The frame-prediction loss may then learn to absorb noise-induced errors into ÊI_rfd and θ̂ rather than refining physically meaningful quantities. Please quantify the approximation error on IJRR (e.g., the residual of Eq. (15) using raw EI with a per-pixel constant θ estimate) and discuss how the learned channels behave under the described noise types.
  3. [Sec. IV-B1 and Tables II, IV, V] The paper reports that all classification experiments were repeated 10 times and averaged, but no standard deviations or confidence intervals are provided. Several reported differences are small: for example, Table III shows 0.991 vs. 0.992 on N-MNIST, which the text itself calls 'within the margin of error,' and Table IV contains AEE differences below 0.05. Without uncertainty estimates, the reader cannot assess whether the claimed improvements, especially the controlled same-network comparisons, are statistically meaningful. Please report mean ± std (or equivalent) for the repeated runs, and specify how many runs were used for the optical flow experiments.
  4. [Sec. III-B2 and Sec. IV-B] The paper does not specify how EvRepSL is generated for datasets whose spatial resolution differs from the IJRR training resolution of 240×180. N-MNIST is 34×34, CIFAR10-DVS is 128×128, and MVSEC is 346×260. RepGen's architecture, as described in Table I, downsamples by large factors, and the exact mechanism for handling arbitrary input sizes (resizing, padding, or fully convolutional operation) is not stated. This is directly relevant to the central claim that the frozen RepGen is agnostic to different event cameras and datasets; the resolution-handling procedure must be made explicit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. IV-B2] The text says 'AEE is increased by 0.15' when comparing EvRepSL to the second-best method on indoor flying1; since lower AEE is better, this should read 'decreased' (or 'reduced'). Similarly, the improvement over RG-CNN is reported as '20.7%' but is a difference in accuracy points; please use percentage points or relative improvement.
  2. [Sec. III-A, Eq. (4)] ET is undefined for pixels with fewer than two events, because the denominator nx,y−1 is zero (or the sum is empty). Please specify a convention, e.g., ET(x,y)=0 when nx,y < 2.
  3. [Sec. III-B2] The learnable parameter k is described as a mapping parameter that 'remains constant once trained,' but it is unclear from Table I and the text whether k is a global scalar, a per-pixel map, or a per-channel value. Please clarify its shape and update mechanism.
  4. [Table I] The input-size column lists factors such as w/36, but the actual sizes after repeated stride-2 pooling with padding are not integer divisions of the example resolutions (e.g., 240/36 is not an integer). Please label these as approximate or provide exact layer-wise output sizes.
  5. [Sec. III-B2] The method uses paired APS frames as direct supervision for frame prediction, so calling the training 'self-supervised' is potentially misleading. A brief clarification of why this is considered self-supervised (e.g., no manual labels, frames are automatically available) would help the reader.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: frame-prediction pretext is external, downstream gains are measured, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim that a frozen RepGen enhances classification and optical flow across different event cameras is supported by evaluations on datasets whose labels and ground truth (N-MNIST, N-Caltech101, N-CARS, CIFAR10-DVS, ASL-DVS, MVSEC) are independent of the IJRR frame-event pairs used to train RepGen. The self-supervised objective in Eq. (17) minimizes the MAE between the predicted and actual next frame f1; f1 is known supervision, not a downstream accuracy target, so this is a pretext task rather than a fitted prediction of the paper's main results. The theoretical relation in Eq. (16) is an algebraic consequence of the stated assumptions (constant per-pixel threshold θ, linear intensity-frame relation, events as exact threshold crossings); it does not assume classification or optical-flow accuracy, and the downstream tables are measured, not derived from the equations. The learned channels θ_hat and E_rfd_I are fitted to the frame-prediction loss, but the paper never claims to derive downstream performance from them analytically; it reports empirical comparisons. The only self-citations, Refs. [39] and [40], appear in a related-work sentence about the popularity of four-channel and voxel-grid representations and are not load-bearing for the proposed derivation or for the transfer claims. The non-identifiability of the factorization θ*E_rfd under the MAE loss is a genuine validity caveat about whether the learned channels correspond to physical contrast thresholds, but it is not circularity: it does not make the downstream empirical results reduce to the training inputs. No circular step meeting the required evidence standard was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the event-generation model, the constant-threshold idealization, and the learned parameters k and theta. The transfer assumption is empirical and tested on a limited set of cameras.

free parameters (3)
  • k (intensity offset, b/a) = learned on IJRR, value not reported
    Parameter in linear intensity-frame model I=af+b; estimated by RepGen during self-supervised training (Eq 13-16).
  • theta (per-pixel contrast threshold) = network output, per-pixel per-window values not reported
    Estimated by decoder h_dec_theta; assumes constant within inter-frame interval (Sec III-B1).
  • model width hyperparameter c = not reported in paper
    Determines RepGen complexity; chosen by hand (Sec III-B3).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Events are triggered when log-intensity change crosses a fixed threshold theta, and each event's d_i equals sign_i * theta.
    Invoked in Eq (6)-(9), Sec III-B1.
  • domain assumption theta is constant per pixel over the time interval between two consecutive frames.
    Stated in Sec III-B1: 'we assume theta is a constant threshold for the pixel within this short period'.
  • domain assumption Linear relationship between intensity I and normalized frame f: I = a f + b.
    Introduced in Eq (13) to connect event accumulation to frame pixel values.
  • domain assumption Event streams are free of the four noise types described in [27]; the relation theta*EI = log(I_n/I_0) is exact.
    The derivation in Eq (11)-(12) uses exact equality, while the paper's motivation is that event streams are noisy.
  • domain assumption RepGen trained on IJRR (DAVIS240C) is transferable to other cameras without fine-tuning.
    This is the central empirical premise for the device-agnostic claim; only tested on four cameras.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of EvRepSL: Event-Stream Representation via Self-Supervised Learning for Event-Based Vision." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7HUQMZRH

@misc{pith2026241207080,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: EvRepSL: Event-Stream Representation via Self-Supervised Learning for Event-Based Vision},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7HUQMZRH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07080}
}
read the original abstract

Event-stream representation is the first step for many computer vision tasks using event cameras. It converts the asynchronous event-streams into a formatted structure so that conventional machine learning models can be applied easily. However, most of the state-of-the-art event-stream representations are manually designed and the quality of these representations cannot be guaranteed due to the noisy nature of event-streams. In this paper, we introduce a data-driven approach aiming at enhancing the quality of event-stream representations. Our approach commences with the introduction of a new event-stream representation based on spatial-temporal statistics, denoted as EvRep. Subsequently, we theoretically derive the intrinsic relationship between asynchronous event-streams and synchronous video frames. Building upon this theoretical relationship, we train a representation generator, RepGen, in a self-supervised learning manner accepting EvRep as input. Finally, the event-streams are converted to high-quality representations, termed as EvRepSL, by going through the learned RepGen (without the need of fine-tuning or retraining). Our methodology is rigorously validated through extensive evaluations on a variety of mainstream event-based classification and optical flow datasets (captured with various types of event cameras). The experimental results highlight not only our approach's superior performance over existing event-stream representations but also its versatility, being agnostic to different event cameras and tasks.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07080 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the Proposed Methodology. The figure illustrates the self-supervised learning framework for generating event-stream representations. Left: Raw event streams are processed into a 3-channel EvRep representation capturing spatial, polarity, and temporal information. These representations are then used to train the representation generator, RepGen, based on a hybrid, unlabelled dataset. Middle: Through a sel… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Demonstration of varying event-stream patterns in the temporal domain, as reflected by different values of the proposed temporal channel ET , which captures the distinctive timing dynamics of the events. Finally, EvRep is defined as: EvRep = {EI , EC , ET }. (5) The design of EvRep effectively captures the key com￾ponents of event streams—spatial, polarity, and temporal in￾formation—through its three statistical cha… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Network architecture of the proposed RepGen for self-supervised representation learning. It consists of a shared downsampling encoder h enc and two separate upsampling decoders (h dec EI and h dec θ ) exquisitely designed for estimating EI and θ respectively, followed by a computing module to predict the next frame f1. It is important to emphasize that the block Frame-Event Relation is used solely to guide the self-… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: illustrates a comparative analysis between the in￾tegral channel prior to and following the learning phase. A discernible enhancement in clarity is observed in the generated representation (depicted in the second row) when contrasted with the original (presented in the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mead c.(1991). the silicon retina,

    M. Mahowald, “Mead c.(1991). the silicon retina,” Scientific American, vol. 264, no. 5, pp. 76–83, 1991

    1991

  2. [2]

    A 128 ×128 120 db 15 µs latency asynchronous temporal contrast vision sensor,

    P. Lichtsteiner, C. Posch, and T. Delbruck, “A 128 ×128 120 db 15 µs latency asynchronous temporal contrast vision sensor,” IEEE journal of solid-state circuits, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 566–576, 2008

    work page 2008

  3. [3]

    A 240× 180 10mw 12us latency sparse-output vision sensor for mobile applications,

    R. Berner, C. Brandli, M. Yang, S.-C. Liu, and T. Delbruck, “A 240× 180 10mw 12us latency sparse-output vision sensor for mobile applications,” in 2013 Symposium on VLSI Circuits . IEEE, 2013, pp. C186–C187

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    A qvga 143 db dynamic range frame-free pwm image sensor with lossless pixel-level video com- pression and time-domain cds,

    C. Posch, D. Matolin, and R. Wohlgenannt, “A qvga 143 db dynamic range frame-free pwm image sensor with lossless pixel-level video com- pression and time-domain cds,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits , vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 259–275, 2010

    work page 2010

  5. [5]

    Fast sensory motor control based on event-based hybrid neuromorphic-procedural system,

    T. Delbruck and P. Lichtsteiner, “Fast sensory motor control based on event-based hybrid neuromorphic-procedural system,” in 2007 IEEE international symposium on circuits and systems . IEEE, 2007, pp. 845–848

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    Event-based, 6-dof camera tracking from photometric depth maps,

    G. Gallego, J. E. Lund, E. Mueggler, H. Rebecq, T. Delbruck, and D. Scaramuzza, “Event-based, 6-dof camera tracking from photometric depth maps,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 40, no. 10, pp. 2402–2412, 2017

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    High speed and high dynamic range video with an event camera,

    H. Rebecq, R. Ranftl, V . Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza, “High speed and high dynamic range video with an event camera,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1964–1980, 2019

    1964

  8. [8]

    Event-based semantic segmentation with posterior attention,

    Z. Jia, K. You, W. He, Y . Tian, Y . Feng, Y . Wang, X. Jia, Y . Lou, J. Zhang, G. Li et al., “Event-based semantic segmentation with posterior attention,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 32, pp. 1829– 1842, 2023

    2023

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Asynchronous event-based fourier analysis,

    Q. Sabatier, S.-H. Ieng, and R. Benosman, “Asynchronous event-based fourier analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 2192–2202, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Spade-e2vid: Spatially-adaptive denormalization for event-based video reconstruc- tion,

    P. R. G. Cadena, Y . Qian, C. Wang, and M. Yang, “Spade-e2vid: Spatially-adaptive denormalization for event-based video reconstruc- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 30, pp. 2488–2500, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Low-latency visual odometry using event-based feature tracks,

    B. Kueng, E. Mueggler, G. Gallego, and D. Scaramuzza, “Low-latency visual odometry using event-based feature tracks,” in 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2016, pp. 16–23

    2016

  4. [12]

    Real-time 3d reconstruction and 6-dof tracking with an event camera,

    H. Kim, S. Leutenegger, and A. J. Davison, “Real-time 3d reconstruction and 6-dof tracking with an event camera,” in European conference on computer vision. Springer, 2016, pp. 349–364

    2016

  5. [13]

    The event-camera dataset and simulator: Event-based data for pose estimation, visual odometry, and slam,

    E. Mueggler, H. Rebecq, G. Gallego, T. Delbruck, and D. Scaramuzza, “The event-camera dataset and simulator: Event-based data for pose estimation, visual odometry, and slam,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 142–149, 2017

    2017

  6. [14]

    Hfirst: A temporal approach to object recognition,

    G. Orchard, C. Meyer, R. Etienne-Cummings, C. Posch, N. Thakor, and R. Benosman, “Hfirst: A temporal approach to object recognition,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 37, no. 10, pp. 2028–2040, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    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 transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 39, no. 7, pp. 1346–1359, 2016. IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESS...

    2016

  8. [16]

    Hats: Histograms of averaged time surfaces for robust event-based ob- ject classification,

    A. Sironi, M. Brambilla, N. Bourdis, X. Lagorce, and R. Benosman, “Hats: Histograms of averaged time surfaces for robust event-based ob- ject classification,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2018, pp. 1731–1740

    2018

  9. [17]

    Graph-based object classification for neuromorphic vision sensing,

    Y . Bi, A. Chadha, A. Abbas, E. Bourtsoulatze, and Y . Andreopoulos, “Graph-based object classification for neuromorphic vision sensing,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019, pp. 491–501

    2019

  10. [18]

    Spike-based motion esti- mation for object tracking through bio-inspired unsupervised learning,

    Y . Zheng, Z. Yu, S. Wang, and T. Huang, “Spike-based motion esti- mation for object tracking through bio-inspired unsupervised learning,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 32, pp. 335–349, 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Ev-flownet: Self- supervised optical flow estimation for event-based cameras,

    A. Z. Zhu, L. Yuan, K. Chaney, and K. Daniilidis, “Ev-flownet: Self- supervised optical flow estimation for event-based cameras,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.06898, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Unsupervised event-based learning of optical flow, depth, and egomotion,

    ——, “Unsupervised event-based learning of optical flow, depth, and egomotion,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2019, pp. 989–997

    2019

  13. [21]

    End- to-end learning of representations for asynchronous event-based data,

    D. Gehrig, A. Loquercio, K. G. Derpanis, and D. Scaramuzza, “End- to-end learning of representations for asynchronous event-based data,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, 2019, pp. 5633–5643

    2019

  14. [22]

    A differen- tiable recurrent surface for asynchronous event-based data,

    M. Cannici, M. Ciccone, A. Romanoni, and M. Matteucci, “A differen- tiable recurrent surface for asynchronous event-based data,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part XX 16 . Springer, 2020, pp. 136–152

    2020

  15. [23]

    Training deep spiking neural networks using backpropagation,

    J. H. Lee, T. Delbruck, and M. Pfeiffer, “Training deep spiking neural networks using backpropagation,” Frontiers in neuroscience, vol. 10, p. 508, 2016

    2016

  16. [24]

    Feed- forward categorization on aer motion events using cortex-like features in a spiking neural network,

    B. Zhao, R. Ding, S. Chen, B. Linares-Barranco, and H. Tang, “Feed- forward categorization on aer motion events using cortex-like features in a spiking neural network,” IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1963–1978, 2014

    1963

  17. [25]

    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

  18. [26]

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

    A. I. Maqueda, A. Loquercio, G. Gallego, N. Garc ´ıa, and D. Scaramuzza, “Event-based vision meets deep learning on steering prediction for self- driving cars,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 5419–5427

    2018

  19. [27]

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

    R. Baldwin, M. Almatrafi, V . Asari, and K. Hirakawa, “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 Pattern Recognition , 2020, pp. 1701–1710

    2020

  20. [28]

    Low cost and latency event camera background activity denoising,

    S. Guo and T. Delbruck, “Low cost and latency event camera background activity denoising,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 2022

    2022

  21. [29]

    Probabilistic undirected graph based denoising method for dynamic vision sensor,

    J. Wu, C. Ma, L. Li, W. Dong, and G. Shi, “Probabilistic undirected graph based denoising method for dynamic vision sensor,” IEEE Trans- actions on Multimedia , vol. 23, pp. 1148–1159, 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Mapping from frame- driven to frame-free event-driven vision systems by low-rate rate coding and coincidence processing–application to feedforward convnets,

    J. A. P ´erez-Carrasco, B. Zhao, C. Serrano, B. Acha, T. Serrano- Gotarredona, S. Chen, and B. Linares-Barranco, “Mapping from frame- driven to frame-free event-driven vision systems by low-rate rate coding and coincidence processing–application to feedforward convnets,” IEEE ...

    2013

  23. [31]

    Spiking neural networks for frame-based and event-based single object localization,

    S. Barchid, J. Mennesson, J. Eshraghian, C. Dj ´eraba, and M. Ben- namoun, “Spiking neural networks for frame-based and event-based single object localization,” Neurocomputing, vol. 559, p. 126805, 2023

    2023

  24. [32]

    Asynchronous frameless event-based optical flow,

    R. Benosman, S.-H. Ieng, C. Clercq, C. Bartolozzi, and M. Srinivasan, “Asynchronous frameless event-based optical flow,” Neural Networks , vol. 27, pp. 32–37, 2012

    2012

  25. [33]

    Phased lstm: Accelerating recurrent network training for long or event-based sequences,

    D. Neil, M. Pfeiffer, and S.-C. Liu, “Phased lstm: Accelerating recurrent network training for long or event-based sequences,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    Learning from images: A distillation learning framework for event cameras,

    Y . Deng, H. Chen, H. Chen, and Y . Li, “Learning from images: A distillation learning framework for event cameras,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 30, pp. 4919–4931, 2021

    2021

  27. [35]

    Spatio-temporal recurrent networks for event-based optical flow estima- tion,

    Z. Ding, R. Zhao, J. Zhang, T. Gao, R. Xiong, Z. Yu, and T. Huang, “Spatio-temporal recurrent networks for event-based optical flow estima- tion,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 36, no. 1, 2022, pp. 525–533

    2022

  28. [36]

    Graph-based spatio-temporal feature learning for neuromorphic vision sensing,

    Y . Bi, A. Chadha, A. Abbas, E. Bourtsoulatze, and Y . Andreopoulos, “Graph-based spatio-temporal feature learning for neuromorphic vision sensing,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing , vol. 29, pp. 9084– 9098, 2020

    2020

  29. [37]

    Bina-rep event frames: A simple and effective representation for event-based cameras,

    S. Barchid, J. Mennesson, and C. Dj ´eraba, “Bina-rep event frames: A simple and effective representation for event-based cameras,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 3998–4002

    2022

  30. [38]

    Exploring joint embedding architectures and data augmentations for self-supervised representation learning in event-based vision,

    ——, “Exploring joint embedding architectures and data augmentations for self-supervised representation learning in event-based vision,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023, pp. 3903–3912

    2023

  31. [39]

    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 Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2019, pp. 6358–6367

    2019

  32. [40]

    Event-stream representation for human gaits identification using deep neural networks,

    Y . Wang, X. Zhang, Y . Shen, B. Du, G. Zhao, L. Cui, and H. Wen, “Event-stream representation for human gaits identification using deep neural networks,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 3436–3449, 2021

    2021

  33. [41]

    Event-based video reconstruction using transformer,

    W. Weng, Y . Zhang, and Z. Xiong, “Event-based video reconstruction using transformer,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision , 2021, pp. 2563–2572

    2021

  34. [42]

    Back to event basics: Self- supervised learning of image reconstruction for event cameras via photometric constancy,

    F. Paredes-Vall ´es and G. C. de Croon, “Back to event basics: Self- supervised learning of image reconstruction for event cameras via photometric constancy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2021, pp. 3446–3455

    2021

  35. [43]

    Accurate and efficient frame-based event representation for aer object recognition,

    W. Bai, Y . Chen, R. Feng, and Y . Zheng, “Accurate and efficient frame-based event representation for aer object recognition,” in 2022 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–6

    2022

  36. [44]

    Time-ordered recent event (tore) volumes for event cameras,

    R. W. Baldwin, R. Liu, M. Almatrafi, V . Asari, and K. Hirakawa, “Time-ordered recent event (tore) volumes for event cameras,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 2519–2532, 2022

    2022

  37. [45]

    Comparing representations in tracking for event camera-based slam,

    J. Jiao, H. Huang, L. Li, Z. He, Y . Zhu, and M. Liu, “Comparing representations in tracking for event camera-based slam,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/cvf conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2021, pp. 1369–1376

    2021

  38. [46]

    Motion robust high-speed light-weighted object detection with event camera,

    B. Liu, C. Xu, W. Yang, H. Yu, and L. Yu, “Motion robust high-speed light-weighted object detection with event camera,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement , vol. 72, pp. 1–13, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Adaptive global decay process for event cameras,

    U. M. Nunes, R. Benosman, and S.-H. Ieng, “Adaptive global decay process for event cameras,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 9771–9780

    2023

  40. [48]

    Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,

    K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1556 , 2014

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Inception-v4, inception-resnet and the impact of residual connections on learning,

    C. Szegedy, S. Ioffe, V . Vanhoucke, and A. A. Alemi, “Inception-v4, inception-resnet and the impact of residual connections on learning,” in Thirty-first AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , 2017

    2017

  42. [50]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2016, pp. 770–778

    2016

  43. [51]

    Mobilenets: Efficient convo- lutional neural networks for mobile vision applications,

    A. G. Howard, M. Zhu, B. Chen, D. Kalenichenko, W. Wang, T. Weyand, M. Andreetto, and H. Adam, “Mobilenets: Efficient convo- lutional neural networks for mobile vision applications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks,

    M. Sandler, A. Howard, M. Zhu, A. Zhmoginov, and L.-C. Chen, “Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 4510–4520

    2018

  45. [53]

    Squeeze-and-excitation networks,

    J. Hu, L. Shen, and G. Sun, “Squeeze-and-excitation networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2018, pp. 7132–7141

    2018

  46. [54]

    Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for con- volutional neural networks,

    M. Tan and Q. Le, “Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for con- volutional neural networks,” in International conference on machine learning. PMLR, 2019, pp. 6105–6114

    2019

  47. [55]

    Efficientnetv2: Smaller models and faster training,

    ——, “Efficientnetv2: Smaller models and faster training,” in Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 2021, pp. 10 096– 10 106

    2021

  48. [56]

    U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in International Conference on Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. Springer, 2015, pp. 234–241

    2015

  49. [57]

    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, 2020

    2024

  50. [58]

    Eventzoom: Learning to denoise and super resolve neuromorphic events,

    P. Duan, Z. W. Wang, X. Zhou, Y . Ma, and B. Shi, “Eventzoom: Learning to denoise and super resolve neuromorphic events,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2021, pp. 12 824–12 833

    2021

  51. [59]

    Ced: Color event camera dataset,

    C. Scheerlinck, H. Rebecq, T. Stoffregen, N. Barnes, R. Mahony, and D. Scaramuzza, “Ced: Color event camera dataset,” in Proceedings of IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON IMAGE PROCESSING, VOL. 33, 2024 13 the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, 2019, pp. 0–0

    2024

  52. [60]

    Reducing the sim-to-real gap for event cameras,

    T. Stoffregen, C. Scheerlinck, D. Scaramuzza, T. Drummond, N. Barnes, L. Kleeman, and R. Mahony, “Reducing the sim-to-real gap for event cameras,” in European Conference on Computer Vision. Springer, 2020, pp. 534–549

    2020

  53. [61]

    Ddd17: End-to-end davis driving dataset,

    J. Binas, D. Neil, S.-C. Liu, and T. Delbruck, “Ddd17: End-to-end davis driving dataset,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.01458 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  54. [62]

    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

  55. [63]

    Layer normalization,

    J. L. Ba, J. R. Kiros, and G. E. Hinton, “Layer normalization,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1607.06450, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Searching for activation functions,

    P. Ramachandran, B. Zoph, and Q. V . Le, “Searching for activation functions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.05941 , 2017

    2017 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Event- based vision: A survey,

    G. Gallego, T. Delbr ¨uck, G. Orchard, C. Bartolozzi, B. Taba, A. Censi, S. Leutenegger, A. J. Davison, J. Conradt, K. Daniilidis et al., “Event- based vision: A survey,” IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 154–180, 2020

    2020

  58. [66]

    The regression analysis of binary sequences,

    D. R. Cox, “The regression analysis of binary sequences,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological) , vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 215–232, 1958

    1958

  59. [67]

    A quantitative analysis of current practices in optical flow estimation and the principles behind them,

    D. Sun, S. Roth, and M. J. Black, “A quantitative analysis of current practices in optical flow estimation and the principles behind them,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 106, pp. 115–137, 2014

    2014

  60. [68]

    Converting static image datasets to spiking neuromorphic datasets using saccades,

    G. Orchard, A. Jayawant, G. K. Cohen, and N. Thakor, “Converting static image datasets to spiking neuromorphic datasets using saccades,” Frontiers in neuroscience, vol. 9, p. 437, 2015

    2015

  61. [69]

    Cifar10-dvs: an event-stream dataset for object classification,

    H. Li, H. Liu, X. Ji, G. Li, and L. Shi, “Cifar10-dvs: an event-stream dataset for object classification,” Frontiers in neuroscience , vol. 11, p. 309, 2017

    2017

  62. [70]

    Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,

    T. N. Kipf and M. Welling, “Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 , 2016

    2016 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Convolutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral filtering,

    M. Defferrard, X. Bresson, and P. Vandergheynst, “Convolutional neural networks on graphs with fast localized spectral filtering,” Advances in neural information processing systems , vol. 29, 2016

    2016

  64. [72]

    Geometric deep learning on graphs and manifolds using mixture model cnns,

    F. Monti, D. Boscaini, J. Masci, E. Rodola, J. Svoboda, and M. M. Bron- stein, “Geometric deep learning on graphs and manifolds using mixture model cnns,” in Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2017, pp. 5115–5124

    2017

  65. [73]

    How powerful are graph neural networks?

    K. Xu, W. Hu, J. Leskovec, and S. Jegelka, “How powerful are graph neural networks?” arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00826 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library,

    A. Paszke, S. Gross, F. Massa, A. Lerer, J. Bradbury, G. Chanan, T. Killeen, Z. Lin, N. Gimelshein, L. Antiga, A. Desmaison, A. Kopf, E. Yang, Z. DeVito, M. Raison, A. Tejani, S. Chilamkurthy, B. Steiner, L. Fang, J. Bai, and S. Chintala, “Pytorch: An imperative style, high-pe...

    2019

  67. [75]

    Adam: a method for stochastic optimization (2014),

    D. P. Kingma and J. Ba, “Adam: a method for stochastic optimization (2014),” arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 , vol. 22, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Fusing event-based and rgb camera for robust object detection in adverse conditions,

    A. Tomy, A. Paigwar, K. S. Mann, A. Renzaglia, and C. Laugier, “Fusing event-based and rgb camera for robust object detection in adverse conditions,” in 2022 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2022, pp. 933–939

    2022

  69. [77]

    Self-supervised learning of event-based optical flow with spiking neural networks,

    J. Hagenaars, F. Paredes-Vall ´es, and G. De Croon, “Self-supervised learning of event-based optical flow with spiking neural networks,” Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , vol. 34, pp. 7167– 7179, 2021

    2021

  70. [78]

    Spike-flownet: event-based optical flow estimation with energy- efficient hybrid neural networks,

    C. Lee, A. K. Kosta, A. Z. Zhu, K. Chaney, K. Daniilidis, and K. Roy, “Spike-flownet: event-based optical flow estimation with energy- efficient hybrid neural networks,” in Computer Vision–ECCV 2020: 16th European Conference, Glasgow, UK, August 23–28, 2020, Proceedings, Part ...

    2020

  71. [79]

    Event camera calibration of per-pixel biased contrast threshold,

    Z. Wang, Y . Ng, P. van Goor, and R. Mahony, “Event camera calibration of per-pixel biased contrast threshold,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.09378, 2020

    2012 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Real-time, high-speed video decompression using a frame-and event-based davis sensor,

    C. Brandli, L. Muller, and T. Delbruck, “Real-time, high-speed video decompression using a frame-and event-based davis sensor,” in 2014 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS). IEEE, 2014, pp. 686–689

    2014

  73. [81]

    A dynamic vision sensor with 1% temporal contrast sensitivity and in-pixel asynchronous delta modulator for event encoding,

    M. Yang, S.-C. Liu, and T. Delbruck, “A dynamic vision sensor with 1% temporal contrast sensitivity and in-pixel asynchronous delta modulator for event encoding,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 2149–2160, 2015

    2015

Pith tools

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