Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 7 minor 53 references

A Linear N-Point Solver for Structure and Motion from Asynchronous Tracks

T0 review · 2 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single linear solve recovers camera velocity and 3D structure from asynchronous point tracks, unifying global shutter, rolling shutter, and event cameras.

desk verdict The solver is a genuinely useful primitive and the empirical case holds up; the degeneracy proof in the appendix is wrong and needs a bounded but real rework before the theory section can stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22733 v2 pith:ES4SIFIQ submitted 2025-07-30 cs.CV

Hang Su , Yunlong Feng , Daniel Gehrig , Panfeng Jiang , Ling Gao , Xavier Lagorce , Laurent Kneip This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords asynchronousfeaturetracksstructurefrommotionconstantvelocitymodellinearsolverrollingshuttercameraeventSchurcomplementpointincidencerelation
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 claims that structure and constant-linear motion of a camera can be solved linearly from 2D point tracks with arbitrary timestamps, without requiring synchronized views. It builds a point incidence relation between the rotation-compensated bearing of each observation, the unknown 3D point, and the unknown velocity. Stacking those relations yields one homogeneous linear system, and a Schur complement reduces the velocity part to a small 3-by-3 null-space problem. If correct, one closed-form solver replaces the standard synchronized two-view algorithms and also handles rolling shutter and event camera tracks, even mixing tracks from different collocated sensors.

What carries the argument

The central object is the point incidence relation $[f'_{ij}]_\times P_i - t'_{ij}[f'_{ij}]_\times v = 0$, which expresses that each rotated bearing, the 3D point, and the constant-velocity displacement lie in a common plane. Stacked per point, these constraints form the block matrix $A$; the Schur complement $B = M_D - M_B^\top M_A^{-1} M_B$ collapses the system to $B v = 0$, so velocity is the null vector of a $3\times 3$ matrix and structure is recovered by back-substitution. Because $M_A$ is block diagonal, the inversion cost is linear in the number of tracks rather than cubic.

What would settle it

Using ground-truth trajectories, feed the solver two sequences identical except for a controlled angular-rate bias and compare velocity errors: a linear, track-count-independent error increase would confirm the rotation assumption is load-bearing; likewise, inserting a sudden acceleration spike inside the observation window and watching the velocity error jump would test the constant-velocity assumption directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under a constant velocity model with known angular rate, the paper derives a point incidence relation $[f'_{ij}]_\times P_i - t'_{ij}[f'_{ij}]_\times v = 0$, where $f'_{ij}$ is the rotation-compensated bearing of point $i$ at time $t_{ij}$. Stacking these relations for all points gives a homogeneous linear system $A x = 0$; eliminating the 3D points via the Schur complement produces a $3\times 3$ matrix $B$ whose smallest-singular-value vector is the normalized linear velocity, and the points follow in closed form. The paper states that three temporal observations of a single point already suffice to recover the full orientation of the displacement baseline and the corresponding 3D point, and it gives minimal 3-point, 4-point, and 6-point configurations. It also shows that the classical epipolar constraint and a recent line-based event solver are special cases of the same incidence relation.

Load-bearing premise

The camera rotation must be known and accurate, and translation over each window must be close to constant velocity; if the IMU-based rotation is biased or the trajectory jerks, every equation in the linear system inherits the error and the solver does not correct it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single closed-form solver covers synchronized global-shutter frames, row-timestamped rolling-shutter frames, and fully asynchronous event tracks with no change of algorithm.
  • Minimal configurations of 3, 4, and 6 points, each with at least two observations per track, bootstrap velocity and structure from very sparse data.
  • The solver gives a linear initialization for RANSAC-based tracking pipelines, with degeneracy conditions that are checkable in advance.
  • The same incidence relation specializes to the essential-matrix epipolar constraint and to the line-based event solver, unifying them as instances of one linear system.
  • When acceleration is supplied as known input, the extended version of the solver recovers absolute scale and removes the sign ambiguity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the angular rate is fixed as input, a constant gyro bias should translate directly into a velocity error floor that extra point observations cannot remove; this predicts a linear error-versus-bias curve.
  • The solver could be placed in an outer loop that alternates point/velocity solving with rotation refinement, removing the dependence on an external IMU while keeping each inner solve linear.
  • Since the line solver is a special case of the same incidence relation, point tracks and line tracks could be combined into one hybrid asynchronous solver.
  • The observed trade-off between number of tracks and observations per track suggests that event cameras' high temporal density can substitute for the spatial coverage of frame cameras, which could be tested by matching error curves across sensor types.
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

2 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents a linear N-point solver for estimating 3D point positions and the direction of linear camera velocity from asynchronous, timestamped point tracks. Under a constant-velocity motion model with known angular velocity, the incidence relation f'_ij × (P_i − v t'_ij) = 0 is written as a homogeneous linear system (Eq. 6). The authors eliminate the 3D points via a Schur complement, reducing the problem to a 3×3 system Bv = 0 (Eq. 8), solve for v by SVD, and recover points by linear least squares. Experiments on simulated data and on global-shutter, rolling-shutter, and event-camera sequences are reported, with comparisons to the eventail line solver.

Significance. The proposed solver is an interesting and potentially useful contribution: it gives a single linear system for asynchronous point tracks across modalities, with an O(M) Schur-complement step and released code. If the generic non-degeneracy claims were established, the 3-point (single-track), 4-point, and 6-point minimal cases and the 'three observations of one point' result would be valuable theory. The simulation study is reasonably comprehensive and the real-data results show consistent improvements over the eventail baseline. However, the theoretical guarantee that the SVD of B recovers a unique velocity in the generic case rests on an invalid rank proof, so the central theoretical claim is currently unproven.

major comments (2)
  1. [6.2] The rank analysis in Appendix 6.2 is invalid. From Eq. (29), G^T(I−UU^T)G v_hat = 0 and the fact that G^T is 3×3N, 'G^T has full rank' only means G^T has full row rank; unless 3N = 3 it does not imply (I−UU^T)G v_hat = 0, so Eq. (30) does not follow. More importantly, the proof's goal is impossible in the noiseless case: because A x_true = 0, the true velocity satisfies B v_true = 0, so rank(B) ≤ 2 always. Consequently the subsequent claim that full rank of [G_i, −U_i] forces v_hat = 0 contradicts the existence of the true null vector (v_true, λ_i) with G_i v_true = U_i λ_i. The generic uniqueness of the nullspace of B is therefore not established by the manuscript.
  2. [3.4] The minimal-configuration claims in Section 3.4 (Eq. (11) and the itemized cases, including 'three temporal observations of only a single point') follow only from a constraint count (2N ≥ 3M+2) and the requirement N_i ≥ 2. A constraint count is necessary but not sufficient for a unique solution; one must show that the stacked system A has generic rank 3M+2, or equivalently that B has a one-dimensional nullspace. Since the rank proof in Section 6.2 is invalid, the observability conditions and 'predictable degeneracies and solution multiplicities' asserted in the abstract and introduction are not proven. Please provide a correct rank analysis or explicitly restrict these claims.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract / Section 1] The abstract and the first contribution bullet in Section 1 should explicitly state the known-rotation assumption; Section 3.2 states it, but the unqualified wording 'recover the full orientation of the displacement baseline' could mislead readers.
  2. [6.2, Eq. (33)] The block equation should use [G_i, −U_i] rather than [G, −U_i]; as written, the dimensions are incompatible because G is 3N×3 while U_i is 3N_i×3.
  3. [3.4 / Algorithm 1] The phrase 'enforcing rank(B) ≥ 2 ensures that the SVD step succeeds' is imprecise: in noisy data B will generically have rank 3, and the smallest singular vector is still used. It would clarify the text to state that rank(B) ≥ 2 is the noiseless degeneracy condition for a unique null vector.
  4. [3.5 / 4.2] Section 3.5 says 'Tracks shorter than 2 are pruned' while Section 4.2 says tracks shorter than 10 pixels are filtered; please clarify whether these thresholds refer to the number of observations or to pixel track length.
  5. [Table 3] Table 3 has formatting issues: several entries appear merged with '--' or missing column separators (e.g., in the Ours* + E and Ours + E + GS columns), making the table hard to read; please reformat for clarity.
  6. [Related Work] The sentence 'we build upon a recently introduced geometric method for line feature-based motion and structure estimation from asynchronous measurements [10, 11]' attributes both references to line-based estimation, but [10] is a 5-point relative motion solver; please adjust the citation or the wording.
  7. [Eq. (13)] Please define f_hat'_ij explicitly as the normalized projection of P_hat'_ij = P_hat_i − v_hat t'_ij; currently the reader must infer the normalization from context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the solver follows directly from the explicit constant-velocity model; self-citations to the authors' line solver are background and baseline only.

full rationale

The claimed derivation is self-contained rather than circular. Equation (4) is obtained by substituting the explicitly stated first-order Taylor model p(tij) ≈ v t'ij and the rotation-compensated bearing f'ij into the point incidence relation (3), which is credited to external work [40]; the velocity and 3D points are then recovered as the null-space solution of the homogeneous linear system (6), with the Schur-complement reduction (8) being a standard algebraic manipulation. No parameter is fitted to the evaluation data and then renamed as a prediction: the experiments measure the solver output against simulated ground truth and public datasets, with the authors' earlier eventail [11] used only as a baseline and as the source of the known-rotation modeling convention. The unification claims in Appendices 6.3 and 6.4 are explicit derivations (the epipolar constraint and the line solver [11] are shown to be special cases of the point incidence relation), not a renaming of a known result presented as new. The only substantive weakness is in Appendix 6.2, where the proof that B has the claimed rank infers (I - UU^T)Gv = 0 from G^T(I - UU^T)Gv = 0 because 'G^T has full rank'; this inference is invalid when 3N > 3, and the conclusion sought is also stronger than what the scale ambiguity permits. That is a correctness or proof-completeness gap in the degeneracy analysis, not a circular reduction, so it does not raise the circularity score. The self-citations to [10, 11] are numerous but none is load-bearing for the central derivation, yielding a low score per the rubric.

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

The solver is self-contained given the model: v and Pi are recovered from a homogeneous linear system with no fitted constants. The main assumptions are the constant velocity translation model, known rotation from an external source, calibrated camera, and full-rank data. No invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Camera translation follows a first-order constant velocity model p(t) approximately v t' over the interval, and rotation follows exp([omega t']x).
    Invoked in Sec. 3.2 when the motion is expanded with a Taylor series; if motion is not quasi-linear, the linear system is misspecified.
  • domain assumption The angular rate omega is known from an IMU or an upstream estimation algorithm.
    Secs. 3.2 and 3.5 state that the solver takes omega as input and only recovers v; rotation compensation of bearing vectors depends on it.
  • domain assumption The camera is calibrated, with known intrinsics K.
    Sec. 3.1 defines f_ij = K^{-1} x~_ij, so calibrated geometry is assumed throughout.
  • domain assumption Each tracked 3D point is static and its correspondences are correct, with at least two observations per point.
    Sec. 3 states each point Pi is observed Ni times by a tracker, and Alg. 1 prunes tracks shorter than 2 to keep Fi full rank.
  • domain assumption The data satisfy full-rank conditions: rank(Fi) = 3 for each track and rank(B) >= 2.
    Alg. 1 terminates unless these conditions hold; the appendix claims to analyze rank(B), but the proof there is flawed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Linear N-Point Solver for Structure and Motion from Asynchronous Tracks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ES4SIFIQ

@misc{pith2026250722733,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Linear N-Point Solver for Structure and Motion from Asynchronous Tracks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ES4SIFIQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22733}
}
read the original abstract

Structure and continuous motion estimation from point correspondences is a fundamental problem in computer vision that has been powered by well-known algorithms such as the familiar 5-point or 8-point algorithm. However, despite their acclaim, these algorithms are limited to processing point correspondences originating from a pair of views each one representing an instantaneous capture of the scene. Yet, in the case of rolling shutter cameras, or more recently, event cameras, this synchronization breaks down. In this work, we present a unified approach for structure and linear motion estimation from 2D point correspondences with arbitrary timestamps, from an arbitrary set of views. By formulating the problem in terms of first-order dynamics and leveraging a constant velocity motion model, we derive a novel, linear point incidence relation allowing for the efficient recovery of both linear velocity and 3D points with predictable degeneracies and solution multiplicities. Owing to its general formulation, it can handle correspondences from a wide range of sensing modalities such as global shutter, rolling shutter, and event cameras, and can even combine correspondences from different collocated sensors. We validate the effectiveness of our solver on both simulated and real-world data, where we show consistent improvement across all modalities when compared to recent approaches. We believe our work opens the door to efficient structure and motion estimation from asynchronous data. Code can be found at https://github.com/suhang99/AsyncTrack-Motion-Solver.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22733 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We develop a linear N-point solver for recovering 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Pixel noise sensitivity; Middle: Timestamp jitter impact; Right: Rotation perturbation effects. Each plot compares three observation levels with the number of features and the number of observation per track: sparse (5-5), moderate (20-20), and dense (100-50). Shaded regions represent error bounds across 1000 trials. In a second step, we then report results in real world set￾tings (Sec. 4.2), where we study it… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Track count (left) vs. Observation count per track (right). Box colors indicate noise levels (green: low, violet: high). 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Time Window (s) 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Error (deg) 1px + 1ms + 2deg/s 2px + 2ms + 5deg/s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Velocity errors vs. time window length and noise. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The robustness of acceleration-aware point solver against pixel noise (left) and timestamp jitter (middle) and rotation (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Analysis of acceleration-aware point solver on the number of feature tracks (left) and observations (right) under different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Analysis of the impact of time window on acceleration-aware solver under different noise level. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages

  1. [11]

    A linear n-point solver for line and mo- tion estimation with event cameras

    Ling Gao, Daniel Gehrig, Hang Su, Davide Scaramuzza, and Laurent Kneip. A linear n-point solver for line and mo- tion estimation with event cameras. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), 2024. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12

    work page 2024

  2. [40]

    A mini- mal solution to the rolling shutter pose estimation problem

    Olivier Saurer, Marc Pollefeys, and Gim Hee Lee. A mini- mal solution to the rolling shutter pose estimation problem. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 1328–1334, 2015. 2, 3

    work page 2015

  3. [1]

    Rolling shutter camera absolute pose

    Cenek Albl, Zuzana Kukelova, Viktor Larsson, and Tomas Pajdla. Rolling shutter camera absolute pose. IEEE Transac- tions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI), 42(6):1439–1452, 2020. 2

    work page 2020

  4. [2]

    A 240 ×180 130db 3 µs latency global shutter spatiotemporal vision sensor

    Christian Brandli, Raphael Berner, Minhao Yang, Shih-Chii Liu, and Tobi Delbruck. A 240 ×180 130db 3 µs latency global shutter spatiotemporal vision sensor. IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, 49(10):2333–2341, 2014. 7, 8

    work page 2014

  5. [3]

    A computational approach to edge detection

    John Canny. A computational approach to edge detection. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence (PAMI), PAMI-8(6):679–698, 1986. 7

    work page 1986

  6. [4]

    Event-imu fusion strategies for faster-than-imu estimation throughput

    William Chamorro, Joan Sol `a, and Juan Andrade-Cetto. Event-imu fusion strategies for faster-than-imu estimation throughput. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 3976– 3983, 2023. 3

    work page 2023

  7. [5]

    Rolling shut- ter camera relative pose: Generalized epipolar geometry

    Yuchao Dai, Hongdong Li, and Laurent Kneip. Rolling shut- ter camera relative pose: Generalized epipolar geometry. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 4132–4140, 2016. 2

    work page 2016

  8. [6]

    Fischler and Robert C

    Martin A. Fischler and Robert C. Bolles. Random sample consensus: A paradigm for model fitting with applications to image analysis and automated cartography.Communications of the ACM, 24(6):381–395, 1981. 5

    work page 1981

Show all 53 references
  1. [7]

    Accurate angu- lar velocity estimation with an event camera

    Guillermo Gallego and Davide Scaramuzza. Accurate angu- lar velocity estimation with an event camera. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2(2):632–639, 2017. 4

    2017

  2. [8]

    A unifying contrast maximization framework for event cam- eras, with applications to motion, depth and optical flow esti- mation

    Guillermo Gallego, Henri Rebecq, and Davide Scaramuzza. A unifying contrast maximization framework for event cam- eras, with applications to motion, depth and optical flow esti- mation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , p...

  3. [9]

    VECtor: A ver- satile event-centric benchmark for multi-sensor slam

    Ling Gao, Yuxuan Liang, Jiaqi Yang, Shaoxun Wu, Chenyu Wang, Jiaben Chen, and Laurent Kneip. VECtor: A ver- satile event-centric benchmark for multi-sensor slam. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 7(3):8217–8224, 2022. 7

    2022

  4. [10]

    A 5-point minimal solver for event camera relative motion estimation

    Ling Gao, Hang Su, Daniel Gehrig, Marco Cannici, Davide Scaramuzza, and Laurent Kneip. A 5-point minimal solver for event camera relative motion estimation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pages 8015–8025, 2023. 2, 3, 8

    2023

  5. [12]

    Asynchronous, photometric feature track- ing using events and frames

    Daniel Gehrig, Henri Rebecq, Guillermo Gallego, and Da- vide Scaramuzza. Asynchronous, photometric feature track- ing using events and frames. In Proceedings of the Euro- pean Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV) , pages 750– 765, 2018. 3, 8

    2018

  6. [13]

    Eklt: Asynchronous photometric feature tracking using events and frames

    Daniel Gehrig, Henri Rebecq, Guillermo Gallego, and Da- vide Scaramuzza. Eklt: Asynchronous photometric feature tracking using events and frames. International Journal of Computer Vision (IJCV), 128(3):601–618, 2020. 3, 8

    2020

  7. [14]

    Event-based tracking of any point with motion-robust correlation features

    Friedhelm Hamann, Daniel Gehrig, Filbert Febryanto, Kostas Daniilidis, and Guillermo Gallego. Event-based tracking of any point with motion-robust correlation features. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 18–37. Springer,

  8. [15]

    Multiple View Ge- ometry in Computer Vision

    Richard Hartley and Andrew Zisserman. Multiple View Ge- ometry in Computer Vision . Cambridge University Press,

  9. [16]

    Motion esti- mation of non-holonomic ground vehicles from a single fea- ture correspondence measured over n views

    Kun Huang, Yifu Wang, and Laurent Kneip. Motion esti- mation of non-holonomic ground vehicles from a single fea- ture correspondence measured over n views. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12698–12707, 2019. 2

    2019

  10. [17]

    Real-time rotational motion es- timation with contrast maximization over globally aligned events

    Haram Kim and H Jin Kim. Real-time rotational motion es- timation with contrast maximization over globally aligned events. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 6(3):6016– 6023, 2021. 3

    2021

  11. [18]

    Hanme Kim, Stefan Leutenegger, and Andrew J. Davison. Real-time 3d reconstruction and 6-dof tracking with an event camera. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV), pages 349–364, 2016. 3

    2016

  12. [19]

    Deep event visual odometry

    Simon Klenk, Marvin Motzet, Lukas Koestler, and Daniel Cremers. Deep event visual odometry. In International Con- ference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 739–749. IEEE, 2024. 3

    2024

  13. [20]

    Closed-form solution for absolute scale velocity determination combining inertial measurements and a single feature correspondence

    Laurent Kneip, Agostino Martinelli, Stephan Weiss, Davide Scaramuzza, and Roland Siegwart. Closed-form solution for absolute scale velocity determination combining inertial measurements and a single feature correspondence. In Pro- ceedings of the IEEE International Conference ...

    2011

  14. [21]

    Linear solution to the minimal absolute pose rolling shutter problem

    Zuzana Kukelova, Cenek Albl, Akihiro Sugimoto, and Tomas Pajdla. Linear solution to the minimal absolute pose rolling shutter problem. In Proceedings of the Asian Con- ference on Computer Vision (ACCV), pages 265–280, Cham,

  15. [22]

    Minimal rolling shutter abso- lute pose with unknown focal length and radial distortion

    Zuzana Kukelova, Cenek Albl, Akihiro Sugimoto, Konrad Schindler, and Tomas Pajdla. Minimal rolling shutter abso- lute pose with unknown focal length and radial distortion. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Vi- sion (ECCV), pages 698–714. Springer, 2020. 2

    2020

  16. [23]

    Spatiotemporal features for asynchronous event-based data

    Xavier Lagorce, Sio-Hoi Ieng, Xavier Clady, Michael Pfeif- fer, and Ryad B Benosman. Spatiotemporal features for asynchronous event-based data. Frontiers in neuroscience, 9:46, 2015. 3

    2015

  17. [24]

    Rolling shutter homogra- phy and its applications.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Anal- ysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI) , 43(8):2780–2793,

    Yizhen Lao and Omar Ait-Aider. Rolling shutter homogra- phy and its applications.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Anal- ysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI) , 43(8):2780–2793,

  18. [25]

    A 128×128 120db 15µs latency asynchronous temporal con- trast vision sensor

    Patrick Lichtensteiner, Christoph Posch, and Tobi Delbruck. A 128×128 120db 15µs latency asynchronous temporal con- trast vision sensor. IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits (JSSC), 43(2):566–576, 2008. 2

    2008

  19. [26]

    Globally opti- mal contrast maximisation for event-based motion estima- tion

    Daqi Liu, Alvaro Parra, and Tat-Jun Chin. Globally opti- mal contrast maximisation for event-based motion estima- tion. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) , pages 6348–6357,

  20. [27]

    Spatiotemporal registration for event-based visual odometry

    Daqi Liu, Alvaro Parra, and Tat-Jun Chin. Spatiotemporal registration for event-based visual odometry. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 4937–4946, 2021. 3

    2021

  21. [28]

    Event-based visual inertial velometer

    Xiuyuan Lu, Yi Zhou, Junkai Niu, Sheng Zhong, and Shaojie Shen. Event-based visual inertial velometer. In Proceedings of Robotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2024. 3

    2024

  22. [29]

    Lucas and Takeo Kanade

    Bruce D. Lucas and Takeo Kanade. An iterative image reg- istration technique with an application to stereo vision. In Proceedings of the International Joint Conference on Arti- ficial Intelligence (IJCAI) , pages 674–679. William Kauf- mann, 1981. 7

    1981

  23. [30]

    Data-driven feature tracking for event cameras

    Nico Messikommer*, Carter Fang*, Mathias Gehrig, and Davide Scaramuzza. Data-driven feature tracking for event cameras. Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023. 3

    2023

  24. [31]

    Data-driven feature tracking for event cameras with and without frames

    Nico Messikommer, Carter Fang, Mathias Gehrig, Giovanni Cioffi, and Davide Scaramuzza. Data-driven feature tracking for event cameras with and without frames. IEEE Transac- tions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence (PAMI),

  25. [32]

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

    Elias Mueggler, Henri Rebecq, Guillermo Gallego, Tobi Del- bruck, and Davide Scaramuzza. The event-camera dataset and simulator: Event-based data for pose estimation, visual odometry, and slam. International Journal of Robotics Re- search (IJRR), 36(2):142–149, 2017. 7

    2017

  26. [33]

    Continuous-time visual-inertial odometry for event cameras

    Elias Mueggler, Guillermo Gallego, Henri Rebecq, and Da- vide Scaramuzza. Continuous-time visual-inertial odometry for event cameras. IEEE Transactions on Robotics (T-RO), 34(6):1425–1440, 2018. 3

    2018

  27. [34]

    D. Nister. An efficient solution to the five-point relative pose problem. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Ma- chine Intelligence (PAMI), 26(6):756–770, 2004. 2

    2004

  28. [35]

    Esvo2: Direct visual- inertial odometry with stereo event cameras

    Junkai Niu, Sheng Zhong, Xiuyuan Lu, Shaojie Shen, Guillermo Gallego, and Yi Zhou. Esvo2: Direct visual- inertial odometry with stereo event cameras. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09374, 2024. 3

    2024 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Deep visual odometry with events and frames

    Roberto Pellerito, Marco Cannici, Daniel Gehrig, Joris Bel- hadj, Olivier Dubois-Matra, Massimo Casasco, and Davide Scaramuzza. Deep visual odometry with events and frames. In Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2024. 3

    2024

  30. [37]

    Con- tinuous event-line constraint for closed-form velocity initial- ization

    Xin Peng, Wanting Xu, Jiaqi Yang, and Laurent Kneip. Con- tinuous event-line constraint for closed-form velocity initial- ization. In Proceedings of the British Machine Vision Con- ference (BMVC), 2021. 3

    2021

  31. [38]

    Globally-optimal contrast maximisation for event cameras

    Xin Peng, Ling Gao, Yifu Wang, and Laurent Kneip. Globally-optimal contrast maximisation for event cameras. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence (PAMI), 44(7):3479–3495, 2022. 3

    2022

  32. [39]

    EVO: A geometric approach to event- based 6-dof parallel tracking and mapping in real-time.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2(2):593–600, 2016

    Henri Rebecq, Timo Horstsch ¨afer, Guillermo Gallego, and Davide Scaramuzza. EVO: A geometric approach to event- based 6-dof parallel tracking and mapping in real-time.IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2(2):593–600, 2016. 3

    2016

  33. [41]

    Rolling-shutter modelling for direct visual-inertial odometry

    David Schubert, Nikolaus Demmel, Lukas V on Stumberg, Vladyslav Usenko, and Daniel Cremers. Rolling-shutter modelling for direct visual-inertial odometry. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/RSJ Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 2462–2469. IEEE, 2019. 7

    2019

  34. [42]

    Secrets of event-based optical flow, depth and ego-motion estimation by contrast maximization

    Shintaro Shiba, Yannick Klose, Yoshimitsu Aoki, and Guillermo Gallego. Secrets of event-based optical flow, depth and ego-motion estimation by contrast maximization. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelli- gence (PAMI), 2024. 3

    2024

  35. [43]

    Recent developments on direct relative orientation

    Henrik Stew ´enius, Christopher Engels, and David Nist ´er. Recent developments on direct relative orientation. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 60(4):284– 294, 2006. 2

    2006

  36. [44]

    Event cameras, con- trast maximization and reward functions: An analysis

    Timo Stoffregen and Lindsay Kleeman. Event cameras, con- trast maximization and reward functions: An analysis. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pages 12292–12300, 2019. 3

    2019

  37. [45]

    Ultimate slam? combining events, images, and imu for robust visual slam in hdr and high-speed scenarios

    Antoni Rosinol Vidal, Henri Rebecq, Timo Horstschaefer, and Davide Scaramuzza. Ultimate slam? combining events, images, and imu for robust visual slam in hdr and high-speed scenarios. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 3(2):994– 1001, 2018. 3

    2018

  38. [46]

    Tight fusion of events and inertial measurements for direct velocity estima- tion

    Wanting Xu, Xin Peng, and Laurent Kneip. Tight fusion of events and inertial measurements for direct velocity estima- tion. IEEE Transactions on Robotics (T-RO) , 40:240–256,

  39. [47]

    Full- dof egomotion estimation for event cameras using geometric solvers

    Ji Zhao, Banglei Guan, Zibin Liu, and Laurent Kneip. Full- dof egomotion estimation for event cameras using geometric solvers. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2025. 3, 4

    2025

  40. [48]

    Event-based visual inertial odometry

    Alex Zihao Zhu, Nikolay Atanasov, and Kostas Daniilidis. Event-based visual inertial odometry. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion (CVPR), pages 5816–5824, 2017. 3

    2017

  41. [50]

    Appendix 6.1. Explicit Matrix Formulas In the main text, we discuss the use of matrices MA, MB, MC defined via A⊺A| {z }.=M x = MA MB M⊺ B MD P1:M v = 0(3M +3)×1, (15) 10 where A is defined via   F1 G1 F2 G2 ... ... FM GM   | {z }.=A∈R3N ×(3M +3)   P1 P2 ... P...

  42. [51]

    Further define the unit vector eℓ 2 = eℓ 3 ×eℓ

    (42) Here eℓ 3 points from the closest point on the line to the ori- gin, and eℓ 1 points in the direction of the line. Further define the unit vector eℓ 2 = eℓ 3 ×eℓ

  43. [52]

    (43) Next, we use a⊺[b]×c = c⊺[a]×b to arrive at f ⊺ ijeℓ 2 − t′ ijf ⊺ ij(eℓ 1 × v) = 0

    We start off by multiplying the original incidence relation from the left with eℓ 1 ⊺ yielding eℓ 1 ⊺ [fij]×Pi − t′ ijeℓ 1 ⊺ [fij]×v = 0. (43) Next, we use a⊺[b]×c = c⊺[a]×b to arrive at f ⊺ ijeℓ 2 − t′ ijf ⊺ ij(eℓ 1 × v) = 0. (44) Finally, we express the linear velocity in th...

  44. [53]

    (46) This is exactly Eq

    = 0. (46) This is exactly Eq. 6 in [11], which demonstrates that the line solver is a special case of the point solver described here. 6.5. Arbitrary Taylor Expansions In what follows, we will expand the camera motion as an S order Taylor Series: R(tij) ≈ exp " SX s=1 ω(s)t′s ...

  45. [2019]

    Springer International Publishing. 2

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.