Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 37 references

Planar Velocity Estimation for Fast-Moving Mobile Robots Using Event-Based Optical Flow

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A downward-pointing event camera plus planar optical flow estimates a ground vehicle's full planar velocity without any wheel-traction assumptions, and in scaled-vehicle tests it reduces lateral-velocity error by 38.3% compared with a…

desk verdict A clean, genuinely new sensor configuration for direct planar velocity estimation from a downward-facing event camera, but the headline 38.3% lateral improvement rests on a single pooled dataset with no valid significance test. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.11116 v1 pith:JZYNHVQB submitted 2025-05-16 cs.RO cs.CV

Liam Boyle , Jonas Kühne , Nicolas Baumann , Niklas Bastuck , Michele Magno This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords eventcameraopticalflowvelocityestimationplanarkinematicslateralvisual-inertialodometryautonomousdrivingmotionblur
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 tries to establish that a vehicle's velocity can be read directly from the apparent motion of the ground, without relying on wheel traction or building a pose graph. The idea is to point an event camera straight down, accumulate its asynchronous events into short image-like histograms, compute dense optical flow, and fit a single 2D rigid-body motion to the flow. Because the camera sees only the ground, the fitted translation is the vehicle's own motion, and converting it from pixels to meters requires only the focal length and the camera height. In quantitative 1:10 scale experiments against motion-capture ground truth, the method with IMU-assisted yaw rate achieved a lateral-velocity RMSE of 0.0287 m/s versus 0.0466 m/s for the state-of-the-art monocular event-VIO baseline, a 38.3% improvement, while matching longitudinal performance. A qualitative full-scale highway run at up to 32 m/s further supports the claim that the approach can produce accurate velocity estimates at real driving speeds.

What carries the argument

The central object is the rigid-body motion estimate computed from dense optical flow. Event streams are accumulated into 2D histograms over a chosen time window, Farneback's two-frame polynomial-expansion method produces per-pixel flow, and the least-squares rigid transform (rotation R and translation t) is solved by SVD using the Sorkine-Hornung method. The translation t, expressed in pixels, is converted to meters per second using the camera focal length and a constant assumed height z; the rotation gives yaw rate. An optional IMU yaw-rate replacement removes the main error source in lateral velocity, and a RANSAC loop on flow vectors suppresses outliers.

What would settle it

Run the vehicle over a speed bump or with a heavy load while a motion-capture system records true velocity; if the camera height changes, the estimated velocity should show a correlated error whose size matches the ratio of true to assumed height. A misaligned or pitched camera mount should also produce a lateral velocity bias on straight driving, which the highway experiment already hints at.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that when an event camera stares straight down at the road, the camera's own motion is the only motion in view, so vehicle velocity can be read directly off the optical flow of the ground texture. Accumulating events into histograms, computing Farneback dense flow, and fitting a single 2D rigid-body transformation yields the camera translation per frame; scaling that pixel translation by focal length and known camera height gives metric velocity. In quantitative 1:10 scale experiments against motion-capture ground truth, the eOF+IMU configuration achieved longitudinal RMSE 0.0470 m/s (vs 0.0503 m/s for forward-facing Ultimate SLAM) and lateral RMSE 0.0287 m/s (vs 0.0466 m/s), the 38.3% lateral improvement being the paper's headline result. A qualitative highway run at 32 m/s with RANSAC outlier removal gave mean speed 31.88 m/s, 0.4% below GPS.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes a constant, known camera height and a camera looking straight down: the pixel-to-meter conversion divides by that height, so any pitch, roll, or suspension movement that changes it scales the velocity estimate by the same factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Velocity estimation no longer depends on wheel-to-road traction, so the same pipeline should keep working on ice, gravel, or wet asphalt where wheel odometry loses accuracy.
  • A single CPU-only optical-flow computation gives lateral velocity directly, which wheel encoders cannot provide at all, opening slip detection and model-predictive control on small platforms.
  • Because event accumulation time can be shortened as speed rises, the method remains sharp and blur-free at highway speeds; the 32 m/s experiment supports this.
  • Replacing the eOF yaw rate with an IMU yaw rate cut lateral RMSE by 41.1%, so cheap IMU fusion is an effective refinement even though the raw IMU yaw is noisier than eVIO's filtered output.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the metric scale is entirely set by camera height, the same measurement can be inverted: with known ground velocity, the flow magnitude becomes a height estimate, so a downward event camera could double as a ranging sensor.
  • The 38.3% lateral advantage over Ultimate SLAM suggests that direct flow observes lateral translation that feature-based visual-inertial odometry struggles to make observable in planar motion; if true, other VIO systems with ground-facing cameras should show similar lateral gains.
  • A learned event-flow network trained specifically on downward ground imagery could replace Farneback and probably lower flow endpoint error further, a testable next step the paper itself names as future work.
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 proposes an event-camera velocity estimator (eOF) for ground robots: a downward-facing event camera accumulates events into frames, computes dense optical flow with the off-the-shelf Farneback algorithm, fits a rigid-body translation and rotation in the image plane via SVD, and converts the pixel motion to metric velocity using a known camera height and focal length. An optional RANSAC stage removes outliers, and an optional IMU-based correction supplies yaw rate. The method is evaluated on a 1:10-scale autonomous racing platform against a Vicon motion-capture system and compared with the monocular event-VIO system Ultimate SLAM, reporting a 38.3% improvement in lateral-velocity RMSE with the IMU-augmented version, and is demonstrated qualitatively on a full-scale car at highway speeds up to 32 m/s.

Significance. If the reported performance holds, the paper makes a useful contribution: a simple, computationally light, traction-independent velocity estimation approach that side-steps wheel-odometry slip models and pose-graph VIO complexity. The core kinematic derivation in Section IV-A3 is sound and parameter-free with respect to ground-truth velocity data, and the evaluation against motion capture is a meaningful step beyond purely qualitative demonstrations. The highway experiment, even if qualitative, supports the relevance of event cameras for this application. The paper is transparent about limitations such as featureless surfaces and constant-height assumptions. However, the headline quantitative claim rests on a single pooled dataset and on the IMU-augmented variant, so the strength of the claimed advantage over the state of the art needs additional statistical support before the central comparison can be regarded as conclusive.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V-A, Table II] The headline 38.3% lateral-velocity improvement is a point estimate from a single 10-lap dataset, and the reported sigma is the standard deviation of per-sample velocity errors, not an uncertainty on the RMSE or on the RMSE difference. The text in Section V-A states that the lateral improvement is 'approximately one standard deviation lower,' but this does not constitute a significance test for RMSE differences. Because the errors are strongly autocorrelated in time and all laps are concatenated, pooling thousands of samples substantially overstates the effective sample size. The authors should report per-lap RMSE values (or per-lap error metrics) with mean and standard error, provide confidence intervals for the RMSE difference, and if possible a paired test across laps; this is necessary to support the claim that eOF exceeds Ultimate SLAM in lateral velocity estimation.
  2. [Section IV-A3, Section IV-B2] The pixel-to-metric conversion assumes a constant camera height z and a camera optical axis perpendicular to the ground plane. The paper explicitly acknowledges in Section IV-A3 that 'We assumed the camera height to be constant,' and in Section IV-B2 that the highway suction-cup mount 'could not ensure perfect alignment with the car's longitudinal axis.' Since the reported metric RMSE values are scaled directly by the assumed height and by any pitch/roll misalignment, this assumption is load-bearing for the quantitative comparison. The authors should quantify the sensitivity of the velocity estimates to plausible height and orientation deviations (for example, using suspension travel or motion-capture orientation data from the 1:10 platform) or, alternatively, present the velocity comparison in a way that separates the geometric scaling uncertainty from the algorithmic error.
  3. [Section V-A, Table II] The paper attributes the lateral improvement to the eOF method as a whole, but the comparison that yields the 38.3% improvement is the eOF+IMU configuration. The pure eOF configuration has a lateral RMSE of 0.0487 m/s, which is slightly worse than forward-facing eVIO's 0.0466 m/s, and the lateral gain comes almost entirely from replacing the eOF yaw rate with raw IMU yaw rate. This is not an internal inconsistency, since eVIO also uses an IMU, but it means the claimed contribution is better described as 'eOF velocity plus IMU yaw-rate augmentation' rather than a pure optical-flow advantage. The text should be adjusted so that the contribution and the comparison are stated precisely, and the role of the IMU in the lateral improvement should be highlighted in the abstract and conclusion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section IV-B1] The experimental section should clarify whether the ten laps were all used to produce a single pooled RMSE or whether per-lap statistics were computed; currently Table II gives no indication of the number of independent trials.
  2. [Section V-B2] The claim that eVIO is 'approximately 60 times faster' than eOF in Table III is immediately qualified by the statement that the eVIO latency cannot be directly compared because the algorithm is asynchronous; this phrasing should be revised to avoid an apparent contradiction.
  3. [Section IV-A3] The statement 'We assumed the camera height to be constant' should be accompanied by a brief discussion of the expected error magnitude from this assumption or a reference to the sensitivity analysis requested above.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'excesive motion blurr' in Section IV-A1, 'Evalution' in the Section V-B1 heading, and a duplicated reference list entry for the event-camera survey (references [17] and [37] are the same work).
  5. [Figure 5] The bottom subplot label '0 2 [rad/s]' appears to be misformatted and should be corrected to a clear y-axis label for yaw rate.
  6. [Section IV, Contribution IV] The paper states 'Link will be added upon acceptance' for the open-source implementation; since reproducibility is one of the paper's strengths, the authors should provide a permanent repository link or a clear statement of availability at the time of final publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: velocity estimate is a direct kinematic inversion of optical flow; benchmark comparison is empirical.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. Section IV-A3 formulates velocity estimation as a planar rigid-body least-squares problem (Eq. 2), solved by SVD, with no parameter fitted to ground-truth velocity. The pixel-to-metric conversion uses the stated camera focal length, height, and frame timing, and the constant-height assumption is explicitly disclosed as an assumption rather than a fitted quantity. Equation (3) is a standard kinematic transform from the camera center to the rear axle, and the optional IMU augmentation uses raw yaw-rate measurements, not ground-truth velocity. The quantitative comparison against Ultimate SLAM is an external benchmark against motion-capture data, not a self-referential prediction. Self-citations to the ForzaETH platform [5] and prior optical-flow work [30] are contextual and do not carry the argument's load. No equation is shown to reduce to its own input, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

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

The central contribution rests on standard kinematics and a measured camera height; the only hand-tuned values are the accumulation time and RANSAC parameters, which are explicitly stated. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Event accumulation time = 33 ms (1:10), 100 µs (highway)
    Chosen by the operator based on expected speed to balance feature density and motion blur; affects the optical flow integration and thus the velocity estimate.
  • RANSAC inlier threshold = 0.5 pixels (highway)
    Hand-chosen threshold for the highway experiment; too strict or loose changes outlier rejection and final velocity.
  • RANSAC iteration count = 16 (highway)
    Hand-chosen; affects robustness and runtime.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ground is a single rigid body moving in 2D within the camera field of view.
    Invoked in Section IV-A3 to reduce velocity estimation to planar rigid-body motion; fails if other objects (e.g., obstacles) appear in the image or if the surface is non-planar.
  • domain assumption The camera height above the ground is constant during motion.
    Section IV-A3 assumes constant z for the pixel-to-metric conversion; suspension movement or pitching breaks this, as the paper acknowledges and suggests a laser distance sensor.
  • domain assumption The camera optical axis is perpendicular to the ground plane.
    Implicit in the pinhole scale conversion; misalignment introduces scale error. The highway experiment notes the suction-cup mount could not ensure perfect alignment.
  • domain assumption Accumulated event histograms and Farneback optical flow provide a faithful displacement field.
    Section IV-A uses simple event accumulation and off-the-shelf Farneback; accuracy depends on texture, event noise, and accumulation time.
  • domain assumption The vehicle moves in a plane parallel to the road surface.
    Stated in the Introduction: 'road cars always move in a plane parallel to the road surface'.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Planar Velocity Estimation for Fast-Moving Mobile Robots Using Event-Based Optical Flow." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JZYNHVQB

@misc{pith2026250511116,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Planar Velocity Estimation for Fast-Moving Mobile Robots Using Event-Based Optical Flow},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JZYNHVQB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.11116}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate velocity estimation is critical in mobile robotics, particularly for driver assistance systems and autonomous driving. Wheel odometry fused with Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) data is a widely used method for velocity estimation; however, it typically requires strong assumptions, such as non-slip steering, or complex vehicle dynamics models that do not hold under varying environmental conditions like slippery surfaces. We introduce an approach to velocity estimation that is decoupled from wheel-to-surface traction assumptions by leveraging planar kinematics in combination with optical flow from event cameras pointed perpendicularly at the ground. The asynchronous micro-second latency and high dynamic range of event cameras make them highly robust to motion blur, a common challenge in vision-based perception techniques for autonomous driving. The proposed method is evaluated through in-field experiments on a 1:10 scale autonomous racing platform and compared to precise motion capture data, demonstrating not only performance on par with the state-of-the-art Event-VIO method but also a 38.3 % improvement in lateral error. Qualitative experiments at highway speeds of up to 32 m/s further confirm the effectiveness of our approach, indicating significant potential for real-world deployment.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.11116 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed method. Depicted on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Comparison of the maximum allowable camera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative OF visualization of a conventional camera [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: A depiction of the velocity estimation performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Qualitative visualization of the scaled autonomous driving velocity experiment with motion-capture ground truth [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Estimated velocity using the proposed eOF method, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Enhancing ADS and ADAS Under Critical Road Conditions Through Vehicle Sideslip Angle Estimation via Unscented Kalman Filter-Based Interacting Multiple Model Approach,

    S. Battistini, R. Brancati, D. G. Lui, and F. Tufano, “Enhancing ADS and ADAS Under Critical Road Conditions Through Vehicle Sideslip Angle Estimation via Unscented Kalman Filter-Based Interacting Multiple Model Approach,” in The International Conference of IFToMM ITALY . Springer, 2022, pp. 450–460

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Gaussian Process Estimation of Odometry Errors for Localization and Mapping,

    J. Hidalgo-Carri ´o, D. Hennes, J. Schwendner, and F. Kirchner, “Gaussian Process Estimation of Odometry Errors for Localization and Mapping,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2017, pp. 5696–5701

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Ground-Fusion: A Low- Cost Ground SLAM System Robust to Corner Cases,

    J. Yin, A. Li, W. Xi, W. Yu, and D. Zou, “Ground-Fusion: A Low- Cost Ground SLAM System Robust to Corner Cases,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 8603–8609

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    A Generalized Extended Kalman Filter Implementation for the Robot Operating System,

    T. Moore and D. W. Stouch, “A Generalized Extended Kalman Filter Implementation for the Robot Operating System,” in Annual Meeting of the IEEE Industry Applications Society , 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Forza- ETH Race Stack-Scaled Autonomous Head-to-Head Racing on Fully Commercial Off-the-Shelf Hardware,

    N. Baumann, E. Ghignone, J. K ¨uhne, N. Bastuck, J. Becker, N. Imholz, T. Kr¨anzlin, T. Y . Lim, M. L ¨otscher, L. Schwarzenbach et al. , “Forza- ETH Race Stack-Scaled Autonomous Head-to-Head Racing on Fully Commercial Off-the-Shelf Hardware,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11784 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    CIOT: Constraint- Enhanced Inertial-Odometric Tracking for Articulated Dump Trucks in GNSS-Denied Mining Environments,

    D. Benz, J. Weseloh, D. Abel, and H. Vallery, “CIOT: Constraint- Enhanced Inertial-Odometric Tracking for Articulated Dump Trucks in GNSS-Denied Mining Environments,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023, pp. 10 587– 10 593

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Three-Dimensional Vehicle Dynamics State Estimation for High-Speed Race Cars Under Varying Signal Quality,

    S. Goblirsch, M. Weinmann, and J. Betz, “Three-Dimensional Vehicle Dynamics State Estimation for High-Speed Race Cars Under Varying Signal Quality,” 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    Optimization-Based Au- tonomous Racing of 1: 43 Scale RC Cars,

    A. Liniger, A. Domahidi, and M. Morari, “Optimization-Based Au- tonomous Racing of 1: 43 Scale RC Cars,” Optimal Control Applications and Methods , vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 628–647, 2015

    work page 2015

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Pushing the Limits of Friction: A Story of Model Mismatch,

    A. Liniger, “Pushing the Limits of Friction: A Story of Model Mismatch,” 2021, ICRA21 Autonomous Racing. [Online]. Available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= rTawyZghEg&t=136s

    2021

  2. [10]

    Real-Time Precise DGNSS/INS Integrated Relative Positioning With High Output Rate and Low Broadcast Rate for Kinematic-to-Kinematic Applications,

    Q. Li, Y . Dong, D. Wang, J. Wu, and L. Zhang, “Real-Time Precise DGNSS/INS Integrated Relative Positioning With High Output Rate and Low Broadcast Rate for Kinematic-to-Kinematic Applications,” Remote Sensing, vol. 14, no. 9, p. 2053, 2022

    2022

  3. [11]

    KISS-ICP: In Defense of Point-to-Point ICP – Simple, Accurate, and Robust Registration if Done the Right Way,

    I. Vizzo, T. Guadagnino, B. Mersch, L. Wiesmann, J. Behley, and C. Stachniss, “KISS-ICP: In Defense of Point-to-Point ICP – Simple, Accurate, and Robust Registration if Done the Right Way,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters (RA-L) , vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1029–1036, 2023

    2023

  4. [12]

    Ultimate SLAM? Combining Events, Images, and IMU for Robust Visual SLAM in HDR and High-Speed Scenarios,

    A. R. Vidal, H. Rebecq, T. Horstschaefer, and D. Scaramuzza, “Ultimate SLAM? Combining Events, Images, and IMU for Robust Visual SLAM in HDR and High-Speed Scenarios,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 994–1001, April 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    ORB-SLAM: A Versatile and Accurate Monocular SLAM System,

    R. Mur-Artal, J. M. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tardos, “ORB-SLAM: A Versatile and Accurate Monocular SLAM System,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 31, no. 5, p. 1147–1163, October 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    A Point- to-Distribution Degeneracy Detection Factor for LiDAR SLAM Using Local Geometric Models,

    S. Ji, W. Chen, Z. Su, Y . Guan, J. Li, H. Zhang, and H. Zhu, “A Point- to-Distribution Degeneracy Detection Factor for LiDAR SLAM Using Local Geometric Models,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 12 283–12 289

    2024

  7. [15]

    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

  8. [16]

    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

  9. [18]

    A Survey of Autonomous Driving: Common Practices and Emerging Technologies,

    E. Yurtsever, J. Lambert, A. Carballo, and K. Takeda, “A Survey of Autonomous Driving: Common Practices and Emerging Technologies,” IEEE Access , vol. 8, pp. 58 443–58 469, 2020

    2020

  10. [19]

    Intermittent GPS-aided VIO: Online Initialization and Calibration,

    W. Lee, K. Eckenhoff, P. Geneva, and G. Huang, “Intermittent GPS-aided VIO: Online Initialization and Calibration,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2020, pp. 5724–5731

    2020

  11. [20]

    A Benchmark Comparison of Monoc- ular Visual-Inertial Odometry Algorithms for Flying Robots,

    J. Delmerico and D. Scaramuzza, “A Benchmark Comparison of Monoc- ular Visual-Inertial Odometry Algorithms for Flying Robots,” in 2018 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2018, pp. 2502–2509

    2018

  12. [21]

    Parallel Tracking and Mapping for Small AR Workspaces,

    G. Klein and D. Murray, “Parallel Tracking and Mapping for Small AR Workspaces,” in 2007 6th IEEE and ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality , IEEE. Nara, Japan: IEEE/ACM, 2007, pp. 225–234

    2007

  13. [22]

    DTAM: Dense Tracking and Mapping in Real-Time,

    R. A. Newcombe, S. J. Lovegrove, and A. J. Davison, “DTAM: Dense Tracking and Mapping in Real-Time,” in 2011 international conference on computer vision , IEEE. Tokyo, Japan: IEEE, 2011, pp. 2320–2327

    2011

  14. [23]

    Vins-Mono: A Robust and Versatile Monoc- ular Visual-Inertial State Estimator,

    T. Qin, P. Li, and S. Shen, “Vins-Mono: A Robust and Versatile Monoc- ular Visual-Inertial State Estimator,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1004–1020, 2018

    2018

  15. [24]

    Esvio: Event-Based Stereo Visual Inertial Odometry,

    P. Chen, W. Guan, and P. Lu, “Esvio: Event-Based Stereo Visual Inertial Odometry,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 3661–3668, 2023

    2023

  16. [25]

    Pl-Evio: Robust Monocular Event- Based Visual Inertial Odometry With Point and Line Features,

    W. Guan, P. Chen, Y . Xie, and P. Lu, “Pl-Evio: Robust Monocular Event- Based Visual Inertial Odometry With Point and Line Features,” IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering , 2023

    2023

  17. [26]

    Event-Based Visual/Inertial Odometry for UA V Indoor Navigation,

    A. Elamin, A. El-Rabbany, and S. Jacob, “Event-Based Visual/Inertial Odometry for UA V Indoor Navigation,” Sensors, vol. 25, no. 1, p. 61, 2024

    2024

  18. [27]

    Revio: Range-and event-based visual-inertial odometry for bio-inspired sensors,

    Y . Wang, B. Shao, C. Zhang, J. Zhao, and Z. Cai, “Revio: Range-and event-based visual-inertial odometry for bio-inspired sensors,” Biomimet- ics, vol. 7, no. 4, p. 169, 2022

    2022

  19. [28]

    Odometry for Ground Moving Agents by Optic Flow Recorded With Optical Mouse Chips,

    H. Dahmen and H. A. Mallot, “Odometry for Ground Moving Agents by Optic Flow Recorded With Optical Mouse Chips,” Sensors, vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 21 045–21 064, 2014

    2014

  20. [29]

    An Open Source and Open Hardware Embedded Metric Optical Flow Cmos Cam- era for Indoor and Outdoor Applications,

    D. Honegger, L. Meier, P. Tanskanen, and M. Pollefeys, “An Open Source and Open Hardware Embedded Metric Optical Flow Cmos Cam- era for Indoor and Outdoor Applications,” in 2013 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation . IEEE, 2013, pp. 1736–1741

    2013

  21. [30]

    Parallelizing Optical Flow Estima- tion on an Ultra-Low Power Risc-v Cluster for Nano-Uav Navigation,

    J. K ¨uhne, M. Magno, and L. Benini, “Parallelizing Optical Flow Estima- tion on an Ultra-Low Power Risc-v Cluster for Nano-Uav Navigation,” in 2022 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 301–305

    2022

  22. [31]

    CMOS Image Sensor Technology Advances for Mobile Devices,

    R. J. Gove, “CMOS Image Sensor Technology Advances for Mobile Devices,” in High Performance Silicon Imaging . Elsevier, 2020, pp. 185–240

    2020

  23. [32]

    Emergent Visual Sensors for Autonomous Vehicles,

    Y . Li, J. Moreau, and J. Ibanez-Guzman, “Emergent Visual Sensors for Autonomous Vehicles,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 4716–4737, 2023

    2023

  24. [33]

    Two-Frame Motion Estimation Based on Polynomial Ex- pansion,

    G. Farneb ¨ack, “Two-Frame Motion Estimation Based on Polynomial Ex- pansion,” in Image Analysis: 13th Scandinavian Conference, SCIA 2003 Halmstad, Sweden, June 29–July 2, 2003 Proceedings 13 . Springer, 2003, pp. 363–370

    2003

  25. [34]

    Lightweight Event- Based Optical Flow Estimation via Iterative Deblurring,

    Y . Wu, F. Paredes-Vall ´es, and G. C. de Croon, “Lightweight Event- Based Optical Flow Estimation via Iterative Deblurring,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 14 708–14 715

    2024

  26. [35]

    E-Raft: Dense Optical Flow From Event Cameras,

    M. Gehrig, M. Millh ¨ausler, D. Gehrig, and D. Scaramuzza, “E-Raft: Dense Optical Flow From Event Cameras,” in 2021 International Con- ference on 3D Vision (3DV) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 197–206

    2021

  27. [36]

    EV-FlowNet: Self- Supervised Optical Flow Estimation for Event-Based Cameras,

    A. Zhu, L. Yuan, K. Chaney, and K. Daniilidis, “EV-FlowNet: Self- Supervised Optical Flow Estimation for Event-Based Cameras,” in Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, June 2018

    2018

  28. [37]

    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, and D. Scara- muzza, “Event-Based Vision: A Survey,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 154–180, 2022

    2022

  29. [38]

    Least-Squares Rigid Motion Using SVD,

    O. Sorkine-Hornung and M. Rabinovich, “Least-Squares Rigid Motion Using SVD,” Computing, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2017

    2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.