Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 78 references

Hybrid Event Frame Sensors: Modeling, Calibration, and Simulation

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a single statistical noise model can describe both the RAW frames and the event stream of a hybrid event-frame sensor, and that a simulator calibrated from that model yields synthetic data that improves real-sensor vid

desk verdict Solid APS side, shaky EVS core: the unified-noise idea is right, but Eq. 12 trades away the stated physics and the transfer claims lack a control. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.18037 v2 pith:7JURPLM5 submitted 2025-11-22 cs.CV

Yunfan Lu , Nico Messikommer , Xiaogang Xu , Liming Chen , Yuhan Chen , Nikola Zubic , Davide Scaramuzza , Hui Xiong This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords hybridevent-framesensorsAPSEVSunifiednoisemodeleventcameracalibrationsimulationRAWframesynthesisQ-functionprobabilityvideointerpolationdeblurring
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 sets out to establish that hybrid event-frame sensors—chips that output both ordinary intensity frames and asynchronous events from one pixel array—can be described by a single statistical noise model rather than two separate ones. It derives a formulation in which photon shot noise, dark current, fixed-pattern noise, and quantization noise appear in both the APS and EVS paths, with the event triggering probability linked to illumination through the Q-function. From this model it builds a calibration pipeline that estimates noise parameters from static dark and brightness patterns, and then a simulator, H-ESIM, that generates RAW frames and events under those calibrated statistics. If the model is right, synthetic data from H-ESIM carries the sensor's real noise behavior, and the paper shows that fine-tuning interpolation and deblurring networks on such data improves their results on real hybrid-sensor recordings.

What carries the argument

The mechanism that carries the argument is the Q-function identity σ_n^2 = (θ / Q^{-1}(P))^2, which turns the discrete ON/OFF output of an event pixel into a measurable noise variance. Around this identity the model uses a shared ideal signal I_c, a second-order polynomial Var(N_a) = β0 + β1 I_c + β2 Δt + β3 I_c^2 + β4 I_c Δt + β5 Δt^2 for APS noise variance, and an affine voltage mapping V̂ + V_PD ≈ β1 I_c + β2 to connect the APS intensity domain to the EVS logarithmic voltage domain. Together these allow a calibration pipeline to convert observed event probabilities and frame variances into a parameter set that drives the simulator's noise injection and threshold comparison.

What would settle it

Record a static grayscale ramp at several exposure times and temperatures, count per-pixel event probabilities, and fit Q^{-1}(P) against the affine-plus-square-root form of Eq. 12. A systematic nonlinearity in I_c, or a change in event rate with temperature at fixed brightness, would falsify the constant-dark-current and fixed-correlation assumptions.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core claim is that both pixel types in a hybrid sensor—the integrating APS pixel and the differential, thresholding EVS pixel—obey the same noise-generating physics, so both can be written as Gaussian noise terms added to a shared ideal signal. The key relationship is P+ = P− = Q(θ/σ_n) for a static scene, which means the probability of a noise-triggered event directly reveals the event noise variance. Calibrating static multi-brightness frames therefore yields the shot-noise, dark-current, and fixed-pattern parameters for both modalities, and the simulator injects those same statistics when generating frames and events. The authors validate this on two hybrid sensors by matching measure

Load-bearing premise

The calibration assumes that in static scenes the event signal S is zero and the mean event noise μ_n is zero, and that the mapping from APS intensity to EVS voltage is affine; if these fail under motion, low light, or temperature change, the calibrated event statistics and the simulator's events will no longer match the real sensor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Calibrated noise parameters from a real hybrid sensor can be reused to synthesize RAW frames and events for that sensor without hand-tuned thresholds or heuristic event rules.
  • Fine-tuning video frame interpolation and deblurring networks on H-ESIM synthetic data improves their perceptual quality on real hybrid-sensor sequences.
  • The unified model separates illumination-dependent, exposure-dependent, and fixed noise, so it predicts how sensor noise changes with brightness and exposure time.
  • The calibration has to be performed per sensor and per layout; the two sensors studied show different row noise and color-filter-dependent variance, so transfer across sensor models is not automatic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the calibrated model ties event rates to absolute brightness, the same pipeline could be inverted to estimate scene irradiance from event counts alone, which the paper does not claim to do.
  • The per-position Quad-Bayer coefficients expose spatially structured noise at the color-filter level, suggesting a demosaicing or denoising network could be designed to consume those calibrated positions as side information.
  • The Gaussian model for event noise will likely need a Poisson or Gamma replacement at very low photon counts; testing H-ESIM in that regime would directly probe the model's range of validity.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes the first unified statistical noise model for hybrid event-frame sensors, jointly describing APS and EVS noise (shot, dark-current, fixed-pattern, quantization). It introduces a calibration pipeline that estimates noise parameters from real hybrid sensors (AlpsenTek GEN2 and Eiger), and presents H-ESIM, a simulator that generates synthetic RAW frames and events with calibrated noise statistics. The simulator is evaluated by fine-tuning video frame interpolation and deblurring networks on synthetic data and testing on real hybrid-sensor data, reporting improvements in no-reference quality metrics. The central claim is that calibrated, jointly modeled noise statistics enable realistic simulation that transfers to downstream tasks.

Significance. If the claims hold, the paper would provide a principled, reproducible simulation tool for the emerging hybrid event-frame sensor domain, potentially reducing the need for costly real-data collection for training. The release of an open NumPy/PyTorch simulator and the use of a 3200 fps input video dataset to avoid interpolation artifacts are concrete, useful contributions. However, the validation currently has important gaps: the EVS noise model is fit and tested on the same data, the transfer experiments lack a control simulator, and a stated physical scaling in Section 3 is contradicted by the calibration equation in Section 4. These issues bear directly on the 'statistically grounded' claim, so the significance is contingent on resolving them.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3 vs. §4, Eq. (12)] The shot-noise model is internally inconsistent. Section 3 states σ_shot² ∝ V̂_t (Poisson scaling), which implies σ_shot ∝ sqrt(β1 I_c + β2). Equation (12), however, sets σ_shot = β3 I_c, a linear dependence on intensity. This is not a minor notational slip: it changes the predicted brightness dependence of event probability. With the physical sqrt scaling and the static-scene Q-function, P = Q(θ/σ_n) should decrease as brightness increases (since σ_n ∝ 1/sqrt(V)), yet Figure 5(d) shows P increasing with brightness. The calibration thus substitutes a flexible regression form for the stated physics. The paper should either revise Section 3 to present the model actually used (empirical intensity-dependent shot noise) or extend the physical derivation to explain the observed increase. The current presentation undermines the 'statistically grounded' claim.
  2. [§4, Event Noise Calibration; §6.1, Fig. 5] The EVS noise 'validation' is in-sample. The parameters β_e are estimated by fitting Eq. (12) to observed event probabilities P(I_c) from static scenes, and Fig. 5 then compares model-generated probabilities to those same observed probabilities. This is a check of the fit, not an independent prediction. The same holds for APS in Fig. 4(d)–(g), where the fitted variance polynomial is evaluated on the calibration data. To support generalization, the authors should hold out brightness levels, scenes, or sensors and report prediction error, or validate the calibrated event statistics on dynamic scenes where the signal part S is nonzero.
  3. [§6.2, Tables 1–2] The downstream transfer experiments do not isolate the contribution of the calibrated noise statistics. Fine-tuning with H-ESIM is compared only against not fine-tuning; there is no control fine-tuned with an existing simulator (e.g., ESIM or v2e) or with an uncorrupted/ideal event stream. Consequently, the observed improvements could stem from the 3200 fps input, the specific event-generation pipeline, or joint RAW+event simulation, rather than from the calibrated noise parameters. Additionally, Table 1 reports BRISQUE for Eiger HR-INR(w) as 45.43 vs. 31.45 for (w/o), yet the text claims 'lower distortion' — a direct contradiction that must be addressed.
  4. [§4, Eq. (12), parameter identifiability] The parameter set β_e = {β0,...,β5} in Eq. (12) is not identifiable from P(I) alone. The right-hand side is invariant under rescaling transformations (e.g., multiplying β0 and β1 by reciprocal constants, or scaling β3 and β4 together and adjusting β0). The paper does not discuss this gauge freedom or impose constraints. This matters because the calibrated β's are presented as interpretable physical noise parameters (shot coefficient, dark-current coefficient, correlation). At minimum, the authors should state which parameters are identifiable and how the remaining degrees of freedom are fixed, or drop the interpretability claim for those parameters.
minor comments (3)
  1. [§5, EVS Simulator, step (3)] Parameter names are inconsistent: the text says 'σ_shot ≈ β4 I_c, σ_DCSN ≈ β5, and correlation ρ≈β6', but Section 4 defines σ_shot = β3 I_c, σ_DCSN = β4, ρ = −β5. Please correct to avoid confusion.
  2. [§4, Eq. (11)–(12)] The mapping from I_c to V̂ is affine (V̂+V_PD ≈ β1 I_c + β2). Since σ_shot in Eq. (12) is linear in I_c, the denominator in Eq. (12) can be re-expressed directly in terms of V̂. Clarify whether β3 is a voltage-domain or intensity-domain coefficient, and ensure all references (including Sec. 5) use the same convention.
  3. [§6.2, Table 2] The improvement for MAER is marginal (CLIP-IQA 0.3297→0.3370, MUSIQ 18.88→19.05, NRQM 5.038→5.064). Reporting statistical significance or confidence intervals would help assess whether the fine-tuning benefit is real for that model.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

EVS noise 'prediction' in Fig. 5(d) is a roundtrip of the Eq. 12 fit; the simulator's event statistics are calibrated, not independently predicted.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 4 (Event Noise Calibration, Eq. 12) and Sec. 6.1 (EVS Noise Analysis, Fig. 5(d))]
    "For random noise, we adopt an intensity-dependent model consistent with the APS: σ_shot = β3Ic, σ_DCSN = β4, and ρ = −β5, which yields the regression form in Eq. 12. ... Since Eq. 12 is nonlinear, we apply gradient descent to fit the relationship between pixel intensity Ic and the observed event probability P. ... Fig. 5 (d) further shows that, as brightness increases, the entire distribution shifts upward, aligning with the prediction of Eq. 12."

    Eq. 12 is a parameterized regression whose parameters β_e are fitted by gradient descent to the observed event probability P(I_c) in the same static calibration scenes. The simulator then samples events from the same fitted probabilities (Eq. 11/12), so Fig. 5(d)'s 'prediction of Eq. 12' is a restatement of the fit. Matching the calibration data is guaranteed by construction and provides no independent evidence that the EVS noise model generalizes. Moreover, the claimed physics (σ_shot^2 ∝ V̂t in Sec. 3) is replaced by the flexible linear form σ_shot = β3I_c, chosen to reproduce the observed brightness trend, making the validation self-consistent rather than predictive.

full rationale

The paper's central downstream claim is partially independent: networks fine-tuned on H-ESIM generalize to real hybrid-sensor VFI/deblurring data, and these experiments compare with and without H-ESIM fine-tuning. That transfer is external evidence and is not circular. However, the EVS noise validation is circular: Eq. 12 is fitted to observed event probabilities, then Fig. 5(d) is presented as 'aligning with the prediction of Eq. 12.' This is a fit check, not an independent prediction. The simulator's event output inherits the same fitted statistics by construction, so the claim that H-ESIM is 'statistically grounded' is supported by calibration, not by a test of the noise model's predictive power. The paper also honestly limits itself by excluding low light, extreme temperatures, and bandwidth bottlenecks. There is no load-bearing self-citation here; references to prior event-camera noise work are standard. The score reflects one central 'prediction' that reduces by construction to the fitted regression, while the downstream transfer experiments keep the overall contribution from being entirely circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is explicitly a calibration framework, so many fitted parameters are expected. The load-bearing unforced choices are the affine voltage mapping, the second-order variance polynomial, and the fitted shot–dark correlation; these need independent validation before the simulator can be treated as a predictive model.

free parameters (8)
  • APS noise-variance polynomial β_a (β0..β5) per Quad-Bayer position = six coefficients × 16 positions
    Eq. 10 fits Var(N_a) as a second-order polynomial in I_c and Δt; quadratic and cross terms are empirical curve-fitting, not derived from Eq. 2.
  • APS fixed components N_DP, N_row, N_BLC = row vector / per-pixel map from dark-frame linear fits
    Estimated by linear regression of dark-frame means vs exposure; injected into simulator via Eq. 2.
  • EVS threshold scale β0 = unit-conversion factor
    Eq. 12 introduces β0 to make hardware threshold Θ comparable to Q^{-1}(P); fitted by gradient descent.
  • EVS voltage mapping β1, β2 = affine coefficients
    V̂+V_PD ≈ β1 I_c + β2 is assumed without physical derivation; maps APS digital intensity to EVS voltage.
  • EVS shot-noise coefficient β3 = σ_shot = β3 I_c
    Fitted to observed event probabilities; linear intensity dependence of shot-noise std in event pixels.
  • EVS dark-current coefficient β4 = σ_DCSN = β4
    Fitted constant dark-current shot-noise std; combined with β3 in Eq. 12.
  • EVS shot–dark correlation β5 = ρ = −β5
    Ad hoc correlation term introduced to make Eq. 12 fit observed event probabilities; no circuit justification; sign/index inconsistent with Sec. 5.
  • Per-pixel defective offset μ_n and bad-pixel mask = mask and offsets from dark events
    Non-zero mean μ_n for defective pixels; outliers are removed via a bad-pixel mask instead of being modeled.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The ideal electrical signal I_c is shared by APS and EVS through the same optical path (Eq. 1).
    Central to the unified model; assumes perfect spatiotemporal alignment and identical spectral response after color filter.
  • domain assumption All APS noise sources in Eq. 2 are approximately additive and Gaussian/uniform; shot noise approximated as Gaussian.
    Standard imaging noise approximation, but not exact for low photon counts.
  • domain assumption Event noise between t0 and t1 is independent (Brownian-motion assumption, after Lin et al. [35]), yielding Gaussian N_e with variance in Eq. 6.
    Ignores temporal correlation of fixed-pattern and dark-current noise; load-bearing for the Q-function probabilities.
  • domain assumption Calibration scenes are static (S=0) with zero-mean bias μ_n=0, so P+=P-=Q(θ/σ_n).
    Used to derive Eq. 11; if residual motion or bias is present, calibration is biased.
  • ad hoc to paper APS intensity maps to EVS voltage affinely: V̂+V_PD ≈ β1 I_c + β2.
    No derivation; an event pixel's log-domain response suggests a logarithmic relation. Monotonicity/positivity constraints are only weak checks.
  • ad hoc to paper Noise variance as a function of (I_c, Δt) is well described by the second-order polynomial Eq. 10 with per-position coefficients.
    Curve-fitting choice, not implied by Eq. 2; the quadratic/cross terms are empirical.
  • ad hoc to paper Shot and dark-current noise in the same event pixel have a constant correlation ρ fitted as −β5.
    Introduced to make Eq. 12 fit observed event probabilities; no circuit-level justification; sign inconsistent in Sec. 5.
  • standard math Event decisions are conditionally independent Bernoulli trials with probabilities P+ and P-.
    Used to justify binomial counting and the R²>0.95 linearity claim in Fig. 5(c).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hybrid Event Frame Sensors: Modeling, Calibration, and Simulation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7JURPLM5

@misc{pith2026251118037,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hybrid Event Frame Sensors: Modeling, Calibration, and Simulation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7JURPLM5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.18037}
}
read the original abstract

Hybrid event-frame sensors integrate an Event Vision Sensor (EVS) and an Active Pixel Sensor (APS) within a single chip, combining the high dynamic range and low latency of the EVS with the rich spatial intensity information from the APS. While this tight integration offers compact and temporally precise imaging, the complex circuit architecture introduces nontrivial noise patterns that remain poorly understood and unmodeled. In this work, we present the first unified statistics-based imaging noise model that jointly describes the noise behavior of APS and EVS pixels. Our formulation explicitly incorporates photon shot noise, dark current noise, fixed-pattern noise, and quantization noise, and links EVS noise to illumination level and dark current. Based on this formulation, we further develop a calibration pipeline to estimate noise parameters from real data and provide a detailed analysis of both APS and EVS noise behaviors. Finally, we propose H-ESIM, a statistically grounded simulator that generates RAW frames and events under realistic jointly calibrated noise statistics. Experiments on two hybrid sensors validate our model across multiple imaging tasks, including video frame interpolation and deblurring, demonstrating strong transfer from simulation to real data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.18037 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Hybrid sensor with interleaved APS and EVS pixels, example Quad-Bayer layout. (b) Our framework: i. a unified imaging noise model Mβ for both APS and EVS (Sec. 3); ii. calibration of APS/EVS noise (Sec. 4); iii. Hybrid event sensor simulator, H-ESIM, which generates RAW frames and events (Sec. 5). iv. downstream tasks, such as video frame interpolation, video deblurring. (Sec. 6) Abstract Event–frame hybrid sens… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Hybrid sensor imaging pipeline and simplified pixel circuits. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Key steps of H-ESIM. (I) Input and inverse colorimetric mapping: (a)–(d) map a 3200 fps video to per-pixel intensity Ic and APS/EVS CFA through inverse gamma and inverse color matrix and white balance. (II) APS simulator with calibrated noise: (e)–(g) add fixed terms Nrow, NBLC, and ∆tNDP, then sample the illumination/exposure–dependent variance fa(Ic, ∆t; βa) to synthesize RAW (Eq. 2, Eq. 9, Eq. 10). (III) EVS simu… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: APS noise calibration on GEN2 and Eiger. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Noise events on GEN2 and Eiger. (a, b) Event-probability visualization from GEN2 and Eiger. (c) Log-scale histogram of event probability with a linear fit. (d) Event-probability vs. brightness. (e, f) Per-pixel positive vs. negative event counts for an illuminated scen…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Frame interpolation on deformable motion with hybrid inputs. (a) Inputs: APS frames with the corresponding events. (b)–(d) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

78 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Vista 2.0: An open, data-driven simulator for multimodal sensing and policy learning for autonomous vehicles

    Alexander Amini, Tsun-Hsuan Wang, Igor Gilitschenski, Wilko Schwarting, Zhijian Liu, Song Han, Sertac Karaman, and Daniela Rus. Vista 2.0: An open, data-driven simulator for multimodal sensing and policy learning for autonomous vehicles. InInternational Conference on Robotics and Au- tomation, pages 2419–2426. IEEE, 2022. 3

    2022

  2. [2]

    A 240x180 120db 10mw 12us- latency sparse output vision sensor for mobile applications

    Raphael Berner, Christian Brandli, Minhao Yang, Shih-Chii Liu, and Tobi Delbruck. A 240x180 120db 10mw 12us- latency sparse output vision sensor for mobile applications. InProceedings of the International Image Sensors Work- shop, number CONF, pages 41–44, 2013. 2

    2013

  3. [3]

    Black-level offset: Characterization and correction.Journal of the Society for Information Display, 14(10):895–903, 2006

    Jacobus Besuijen. Black-level offset: Characterization and correction.Journal of the Society for Information Display, 14(10):895–903, 2006. 6

    2006

  4. [4]

    A 240×180 130 db 3µs latency global shutter spatiotemporal vision sensor.IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, 49(10):2333–2341, 2014

    Christian Brandli, Raphael Berner, Minhao Yang, Shih-Chii Liu, and Tobi Delbruck. A 240×180 130 db 3µs latency global shutter spatiotemporal vision sensor.IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, 49(10):2333–2341, 2014. 1, 2

    2014

  5. [5]

    Noise2image: noise-enabled static scene re- covery for event cameras.Optica, 12(1):46–55, 2025

    Ruiming Cao, Dekel Galor, Amit Kohli, Jacob L Yates, and Laura Waller. Noise2image: noise-enabled static scene re- covery for event cameras.Optica, 12(1):46–55, 2025. 2, 3

    2025

  6. [6]

    Physics-guided iso-dependent sensor noise modeling for extreme low-light photography

    Yue Cao, Ming Liu, Shuai Liu, Xiaotao Wang, Lei Lei, and Wangmeng Zuo. Physics-guided iso-dependent sensor noise modeling for extreme low-light photography. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 5744–5753, 2023. 2, 3

    2023

  7. [7]

    Learn- ing camera-aware noise models

    Ke-Chi Chang, Ren Wang, Hung-Jin Lin, Yu-Lun Liu, Chia- Ping Chen, Yu-Lin Chang, and Hwann-Tzong Chen. Learn- ing camera-aware noise models. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 343–358. Springer, 2020. 2, 3

    2020

  8. [8]

    New exponential bounds and approximations for the computation of error probability in fading channels.IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2(4):840–845, 2003

    Marco Chiani, Davide Dardari, and Marvin K Simon. New exponential bounds and approximations for the computation of error probability in fading channels.IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 2(4):840–845, 2003. 2, 4

    2003

Show all 78 references
  1. [9]

    Thomas Finateu, Atsumi Niwa, Daniel Matolin, Koya Tsuchimoto, Andrea Mascheroni, Etienne Reynaud, Poo- ria Mostafalu, Frederick Brady, Ludovic Chotard, Florian LeGoff, et al. 5.10 a 1280×720 back-illuminated stacked temporal contrast event-based vision sensor with 4.86µm pixel...

    2020

  2. [10]

    Event-based vision: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(1):154–180, 2020

    Guillermo Gallego, Tobi Delbr ¨uck, Garrick Orchard, Chiara Bartolozzi, Brian Taba, Andrea Censi, Stefan Leutenegger, Andrew J Davison, J ¨org Conradt, Kostas Daniilidis, et al. Event-based vision: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 44(1):...

    2020

  3. [11]

    Low-latency auto- motive vision with event cameras.Nature, 629(8014):1034– 1040, 2024

    Daniel Gehrig and Davide Scaramuzza. Low-latency auto- motive vision with event cameras.Nature, 629(8014):1034– 1040, 2024. 1

    2024

  4. [12]

    Deep joint demosaicking and denoising.ACM Transactions on Graphics, 35(6):1–12, 2016

    Micha ¨el Gharbi, Gaurav Chaurasia, Sylvain Paris, and Fr´edo Durand. Deep joint demosaicking and denoising.ACM Transactions on Graphics, 35(6):1–12, 2016. 7

    2016

  5. [13]

    Unraveling the paradox of intensity-dependent dvs pixel noise.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.08640, 2021

    Rui Graca and Tobi Delbruck. Unraveling the paradox of intensity-dependent dvs pixel noise.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.08640, 2021. 2, 3

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Optimal biasing and physical limits of dvs event noise.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04019, 2023

    Rui Graca, Brian McReynolds, and Tobi Delbruck. Optimal biasing and physical limits of dvs event noise.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.04019, 2023. 2, 3

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Live demonstration: A 768×640 pixels 200meps dynamic vision sensor

    Menghan Guo, Jing Huang, and Shoushun Chen. Live demonstration: A 768×640 pixels 200meps dynamic vision sensor. In2017 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), pages 1–1. IEEE, 2017. 2

    2017

  8. [16]

    A 3-wafer- stacked hybrid 15mpixel cis+ 1 mpixel evs with 4.6 gevent/s readout, in-pixel tdc and on-chip isp and esp function

    Menghan Guo, Shoushun Chen, Zhe Gao, Wenlei Yang, Peter Bartkovjak, Qing Qin, Xiaoqin Hu, Dahei Zhou, Masayuki Uchiyama, Yoshiharu Kudo, et al. A 3-wafer- stacked hybrid 15mpixel cis+ 1 mpixel evs with 4.6 gevent/s readout, in-pixel tdc and on-chip isp and esp function. In 202...

    2023

  9. [17]

    Physical-based event camera simulator

    Haiqian Han, Jiacheng Lyu, Jianing Li, Henglu Wei, Cheng Li, Yajing Wei, Shu Chen, and Xiangyang Ji. Physical-based event camera simulator. InEuropean Conference on Com- puter Vision, pages 19–35. Springer, 2024. 3

    2024

  10. [18]

    Array programming with numpy.Nature, 585(7825): 357–362, 2020

    Charles R Harris, K Jarrod Millman, St ´efan J Van Der Walt, Ralf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau, Eric Wieser, Julian Taylor, Sebastian Berg, Nathaniel J Smith, et al. Array programming with numpy.Nature, 585(7825): 357–362, 2020. 2, 6, 7

    2020

  11. [19]

    v2e: From video frames to realistic dvs events

    Yuhuang Hu, Shih-Chii Liu, and Tobi Delbruck. v2e: From video frames to realistic dvs events. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference 730 on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1312–1321, 2021. 2, 3, 6

    2021

  12. [20]

    DA VIS 346 AER product specification and datasheet

    Inivation AG. DA VIS 346 AER product specification and datasheet. Product Datasheet, 2023. 4

    2023

  13. [21]

    An analytically tractable approximation for the gaussian q-function.IEEE Communications Letters, 12(9):669–671, 2008

    Yogananda Isukapalli and Bhaskar D Rao. An analytically tractable approximation for the gaussian q-function.IEEE Communications Letters, 12(9):669–671, 2008. 2

    2008

  14. [22]

    Adv2e: Bridging the gap between analogue circuit and discrete frames in the video-to-events simulator.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12250,

    Xiao Jiang, Fei Zhou, and Jiongzhi Lin. Adv2e: Bridging the gap between analogue circuit and discrete frames in the video-to-events simulator.arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.12250,

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Understanding noise and noise reduction in cmos imaging sensors

    Jess Johnson. Understanding noise and noise reduction in cmos imaging sensors. 2024. 2, 4

    2024

  16. [24]

    Some properties of the range in samples from tukey’s symmetric lambda distri- butions.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66 (334):394–399, 1971

    Brian L Joiner and Joan R Rosenblatt. Some properties of the range in samples from tukey’s symmetric lambda distri- butions.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 66 (334):394–399, 1971. 3

    1971

  17. [25]

    An improved approximation for the gaussian q-function.IEEE Communications Letters, 11(8):644–646, 2007

    George K Karagiannidis and Athanasios S Lioumpas. An improved approximation for the gaussian q-function.IEEE Communications Letters, 11(8):644–646, 2007. 2

    2007

  18. [26]

    Musiq: Multi-scale image quality transformer

    Junjie Ke, Qifei Wang, Yilin Wang, Peyman Milanfar, and Feng Yang. Musiq: Multi-scale image quality transformer. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 5148–5157, 2021. 8

    2021

  19. [27]

    Event-based video frame interpolation with cross- modal asymmetric bidirectional motion fields

    Taewoo Kim, Yujeong Chae, Hyun-Kurl Jang, and Kuk-Jin Yoon. Event-based video frame interpolation with cross- modal asymmetric bidirectional motion fields. InProceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference 730 on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 18032–18042, 2023. 8 9

    2023

  20. [28]

    1.22µm 35.6 mpixel rgb hybrid event-based vision sensor with 4.88µm-pitch event pixels and up to 10k event frame rate by adaptive control on event sparsity

    Kazutoshi Kodama, Yusuke Sato, Yuhi Yorikado, Raphael Berner, Kyoji Mizoguchi, Takahiro Miyazaki, Masahiro Tsukamoto, Yoshihisa Matoba, Hirotaka Shinozaki, Atsumi Niwa, et al. 1.22µm 35.6 mpixel rgb hybrid event-based vision sensor with 4.88µm-pitch event pixels and up to 10k ...

    2023

  21. [29]

    Modeling srgb camera noise with normal- izing flows

    Shayan Kousha, Ali Maleky, Michael S Brown, and Mar- cus A Brubaker. Modeling srgb camera noise with normal- izing flows. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 17463– 17471, 2022. 2

    2022

  22. [30]

    Local tone mapping using the k-means algorithm and automatic gamma setting.IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electron- ics, 57(1):209–217, 2011

    Ji Won Lee, Rae-Hong Park, and Soonkeun Chang. Local tone mapping using the k-means algorithm and automatic gamma setting.IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electron- ics, 57(1):209–217, 2011. 6

    2011

  23. [31]

    Noise model- ing in one hour: Minimizing preparation efforts for self- supervised low-light raw image denoising

    Feiran Li, Haiyang Jiang, and Daisuke Iso. Noise model- ing in one hour: Minimizing preparation efforts for self- supervised low-light raw image denoising. InProceedings of the Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Conference, pages 5699–5708, 2025. 2

    2025

  24. [32]

    Image demosaic- ing: A systematic survey

    Xin Li, Bahadir Gunturk, and Lei Zhang. Image demosaic- ing: A systematic survey. InVisual Communications and Image Processing 2008, pages 489–503. SPIE, 2008. 6

    2008

  25. [33]

    A 128x128 120db 15 mu s latency asynchronous temporal con- trast vision sensor.IEEE Journal of Solid-state Circuits, 43 (2):566–576, 2008

    Patrick Lichtsteiner, Christoph Posch, and Tobi Delbruck. A 128x128 120db 15 mu s latency asynchronous temporal con- trast vision sensor.IEEE Journal of Solid-state Circuits, 43 (2):566–576, 2008. 2, 3

    2008

  26. [34]

    Event-guided frame interpolation and dy- namic range expansion of single rolling shutter image

    Guixu Lin, Jin Han, Mingdeng Cao, Zhihang Zhong, and Yinqiang Zheng. Event-guided frame interpolation and dy- namic range expansion of single rolling shutter image. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Multimedia, pages 3078–3088, 2023. 1

    2023

  27. [35]

    Dvs- voltmeter: Stochastic process-based event simulator for dy- namic vision sensors

    Songnan Lin, Ye Ma, Zhenhua Guo, and Bihan Wen. Dvs- voltmeter: Stochastic process-based event simulator for dy- namic vision sensors. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 578–593. Springer, 2022. 2, 3, 4

    2022

  28. [36]

    Hr-inr: Continuous space-time video super-resolution via event camera.arXiv:2405.13389, 2024

    Yunfan Lu, Zipeng Wang, Yusheng Wang, and Hui Xiong. Hr-inr: Continuous space-time video super-resolution via event camera.arXiv:2405.13389, 2024. 8

    2024

  29. [37]

    Event camera demosaicing via swin transformer and pixel-focus loss

    Yunfan Lu, Yijie Xu, Wenzong Ma, Weiyu Guo, and Hui Xiong. Event camera demosaicing via swin transformer and pixel-focus loss. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1095–1105, 2024. 1

    2024

  30. [38]

    Image de- noising in mixed poisson–gaussian noise.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 20(3):696–708, 2010

    Florian Luisier, Thierry Blu, and Michael Unser. Image de- noising in mixed poisson–gaussian noise.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 20(3):696–708, 2010. 3

    2010

  31. [39]

    Learning a no-reference quality metric for single-image super-resolution.Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 158:1–16, 2017

    Chao Ma, Chih-Yuan Yang, Xiaokang Yang, and Ming- Hsuan Yang. Learning a no-reference quality metric for single-image super-resolution.Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 158:1–16, 2017. 8

    2017

  32. [40]

    Timelens-xl: Real-time event-based video frame interpolation with large motion

    Yongrui Ma, Shi Guo, Yutian Chen, Tianfan Xue, and Jin- wei Gu. Timelens-xl: Real-time event-based video frame interpolation with large motion. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 178–194. Springer, 2025. 6, 8

    2025

  33. [41]

    Noise2noiseflow: Realistic camera noise modeling without clean images

    Ali Maleky, Shayan Kousha, Michael S Brown, and Mar- cus A Brubaker. Noise2noiseflow: Realistic camera noise modeling without clean images. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern recognition, pages 17632–17641, 2022. 2

    2022

  34. [42]

    A silicon model of early visual processing.Neural Networks, 1(1):91–97, 1988

    Carver A Mead and Misha A Mahowald. A silicon model of early visual processing.Neural Networks, 1(1):91–97, 1988. 2

    1988

  35. [43]

    Mobile intelligent photography and imag- ing workshop 2024.https: //mipi - challenge

    MIPI Challenge. Mobile intelligent photography and imag- ing workshop 2024.https: //mipi - challenge. org/MIPI2024/, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  36. [44]

    Mobile intelligent photography and imag- ing workshop 2025

    MIPI Challenge. Mobile intelligent photography and imag- ing workshop 2025. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Inter- national Conference on Computer Vision Workshops, Hon- olulu, HI, USA, 2025. IEEE/CVF. 1, 2

    2025

  37. [45]

    No-reference image quality assessment in the spa- tial domain.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 21 (12):4695–4708, 2012

    Anish Mittal, Anush Krishna Moorthy, and Alan Conrad Bovik. No-reference image quality assessment in the spa- tial domain.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 21 (12):4695–4708, 2012. 8

    2012

  38. [46]

    Non-parametric sensor noise modeling and synthesis

    Ali Mosleh, Luxi Zhao, Atin Singh, Jaeduk Han, Abhi- jith Punnappurath, Marcus A Brubaker, Jihwan Choe, and Michael S Brown. Non-parametric sensor noise modeling and synthesis. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pages 73–89. Springer, 2024. 2

    2024

  39. [47]

    Temperature and parasitic photocurrent effects in dynamic vision sensors.IEEE Trans- actions on Electron Devices, 64(8):3239–3245, 2017

    Yuji Nozaki and Tobi Delbruck. Temperature and parasitic photocurrent effects in dynamic vision sensors.IEEE Trans- actions on Electron Devices, 64(8):3239–3245, 2017. 3

    2017

  40. [48]

    Event-based sensor noise modeling for space-based space domain awareness.The Journal of the Astronautical Sci- ences, 72(5):46, 2025

    Rachel Oliver, Brian McReynolds, and Dmitry Savransky. Event-based sensor noise modeling for space-based space domain awareness.The Journal of the Astronautical Sci- ences, 72(5):46, 2025. 3

    2025

  41. [49]

    Event camera simula- tor design for modeling attention-based inference architec- tures.Journal of Real-Time Image Processing, 19(2):363– 374, 2022

    Md Jubaer Hossain Pantho, Joel Mandebi Mbongue, Pankaj Bhowmik, and Christophe Bobda. Event camera simula- tor design for modeling attention-based inference architec- tures.Journal of Real-Time Image Processing, 19(2):363– 374, 2022. 3

    2022

  42. [50]

    Pytorch: An im- perative style, high-performance deep learning library.Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, et al. Pytorch: An im- perative style, high-performance deep learning library.Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems, ...

    2019

  43. [51]

    A qvga 143 db dynamic range frame-free pwm image sensor with lossless pixel-level video compression and time-domain cds.IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, 46(1):259–275,

    Christoph Posch, Daniel Matolin, and Rainer Wohlgenannt. A qvga 143 db dynamic range frame-free pwm image sensor with lossless pixel-level video compression and time-domain cds.IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, 46(1):259–275,

  44. [52]

    Esim: an open event camera simulator

    Henri Rebecq, Daniel Gehrig, and Davide Scaramuzza. Esim: an open event camera simulator. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 969–982. PMLR, 2018. 2, 3, 6

    2018

  45. [53]

    Simultaneous motion and noise estimation with event cam- eras.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04029, 2025

    Shintaro Shiba, Yoshimitsu Aoki, and Guillermo Gallego. Simultaneous motion and noise estimation with event cam- eras.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.04029, 2025. 3

    2025 arXiv

  46. [54]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2011

    Chris Solomon and Toby Breckon.Fundamentals of Digital Image Processing: A practical approach with examples in Matlab. John Wiley & Sons, 2011. 6

    2011

  47. [55]

    Fixed pattern noise removal based on a semi-calibration method.IEEE Transactions on 10 Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(10):11842– 11855, 2023

    Lingfei Song and Hua Huang. Fixed pattern noise removal based on a semi-calibration method.IEEE Transactions on 10 Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(10):11842– 11855, 2023. 2, 5

    2023

  48. [56]

    Event-based fusion for motion deblurring with cross- modal attention

    Lei Sun, Christos Sakaridis, Jingyun Liang, Qi Jiang, Kailun Yang, Peng Sun, Yaozu Ye, Kaiwei Wang, and Luc Van Gool. Event-based fusion for motion deblurring with cross- modal attention. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 412–428. Springer, 2022. 6, 8

    2022

  49. [57]

    Event-based frame interpolation with ad-hoc de- blurring

    Lei Sun, Christos Sakaridis, Jingyun Liang, Peng Sun, Jiezhang Cao, Kai Zhang, Qi Jiang, Kaiwei Wang, and Luc Van Gool. Event-based frame interpolation with ad-hoc de- blurring. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference 730 on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1804...

    2023

  50. [58]

    Low-light image enhancement using event-based illumination estimation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09379,

    Lei Sun, Yuhan Bao, Jiajun Zhai, Jingyun Liang, Yu- lun Zhang, Kaiwei Wang, Danda Pani Paudel, and Luc Van Gool. Low-light image enhancement using event-based illumination estimation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.09379,

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Motion aware event representation-driven image deblurring

    Zhijing Sun, Xueyang Fu, Longzhuo Huang, Aiping Liu, and Zheng-Jun Zha. Motion aware event representation-driven image deblurring. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vi- sion, pages 418–435. Springer, 2024. 8

    2024

  52. [60]

    Global minimax approximations and bounds for the gaussian q-function by sums of exponentials.IEEE Transactions on Communica- tions, 68(10):6514–6524, 2020

    Islam M Tanash and Taneli Riihonen. Global minimax approximations and bounds for the gaussian q-function by sums of exponentials.IEEE Transactions on Communica- tions, 68(10):6514–6524, 2020. 2, 4

    2020

  53. [61]

    Improved coefficients for the karagiannidis–lioumpas approximations and bounds to the gaussian q-function.IEEE Communications Letters, 25(5):1468–1471, 2021

    Islam M Tanash and Taneli Riihonen. Improved coefficients for the karagiannidis–lioumpas approximations and bounds to the gaussian q-function.IEEE Communications Letters, 25(5):1468–1471, 2021. 2, 4

    2021

  54. [62]

    Event-based camera simulation using monte carlo path tracing with adaptive denoising

    Yuta Tsuji, Tatsuya Yatagawa, Hiroyuki Kubo, and Shigeo Morishima. Event-based camera simulation using monte carlo path tracing with adaptive denoising. InIEEE Inter- national Conference on Image Processing, pages 301–305. IEEE, 2023. 3

    2023

  55. [63]

    Time lens: Event-based video frame interpola- tion

    Stepan Tulyakov, Daniel Gehrig, Stamatios Georgoulis, Julius Erbach, Mathias Gehrig, Yuanyou Li, and Davide Scaramuzza. Time lens: Event-based video frame interpola- tion. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Com- puter Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16155–16164,

  56. [64]

    Time lens: Event-based video frame interpo- lation

    Stepan Tulyakov, Daniel Gehrig, Stamatios Georgoulis, Julius Erbach, Mathias Gehrig, Yuanyou Li, and Davide Scaramuzza. Time lens: Event-based video frame interpo- lation. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference 730 on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 16155– 161...

    2021

  57. [65]

    Time lens++: Event-based frame interpolation with paramet- ric non-linear flow and multi-scale fusion

    Stepan Tulyakov, Alfredo Bochicchio, Daniel Gehrig, Sta- matios Georgoulis, Yuanyou Li, and Davide Scaramuzza. Time lens++: Event-based frame interpolation with paramet- ric non-linear flow and multi-scale fusion. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and...

    2022

  58. [66]

    Ex- ploring clip for assessing the look and feel of images

    Jianyi Wang, Kelvin CK Chan, and Chen Change Loy. Ex- ploring clip for assessing the look and feel of images. InPro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 2555–2563, 2023. 8

    2023

  59. [67]

    A physics-based noise formation model for extreme low-light raw denoising

    Kaixuan Wei, Ying Fu, Jiaolong Yang, and Hua Huang. A physics-based noise formation model for extreme low-light raw denoising. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2758– 2767, 2020. 2, 3, 5

    2020

  60. [68]

    Mipi 2024 challenge on demosaic for hybridevs camera: Methods and results

    Yaqi Wu, Zhihao Fan, Xiaofeng Chu, Jimmy S Ren, Xi- aoming Li, Zongsheng Yue, Chongyi Li, Shangcheng Zhou, Ruicheng Feng, Yuekun Dai, et al. Mipi 2024 challenge on demosaic for hybridevs camera: Methods and results. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision...

    2024

  61. [69]

    Mipi 2025 challenge on deblurring for hybrid evs camera: Methods and results

    Yaqi Wu, Zhihao Fan, Hirotaka Shinozaki, Frank Zhang, Xander Li, Alexis Baudron, Wenbin Feng, Shuang Zhao, Jin Han, Cheng Li, et al. Mipi 2025 challenge on deblurring for hybrid evs camera: Methods and results. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer...

    2025

  62. [70]

    Vector sparse representation of color image using quaternion matrix analysis.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 24(4):1315–1329, 2015

    Yi Xu, Licheng Yu, Hongteng Xu, Hao Zhang, and Truong Nguyen. Vector sparse representation of color image using quaternion matrix analysis.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 24(4):1315–1329, 2015. 6

    2015

  63. [71]

    A vision chip with complementary pathways for open-world sensing.Nature, 629(8014):1027– 1033, 2024

    Zheyu Yang, Taoyi Wang, Yihan Lin, Yuguo Chen, Hui Zeng, Jing Pei, Jiazheng Wang, Xue Liu, Yichun Zhou, Jianqiang Zhang, et al. A vision chip with complementary pathways for open-world sensing.Nature, 629(8014):1027– 1033, 2024. 1, 2

    2024

  64. [72]

    Robotic tissue scanning with biophotonic probe

    Lauren Yates, Laura Connolly, Amoon Jamzad, Mark As- selin, Rachel Rubino, Scott Yam, Tamas Ungi, Andras Lasso, Christopher Nicol, Parvin Mousavi, et al. Robotic tissue scanning with biophotonic probe. InMedical Imaging 2020: Image-Guided Procedures, Robotic Interventions, and...

    2020

  65. [73]

    Learning to super- resolve blurry images with events.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(08):10027– 10043, 2023

    Lei Yu, Bishan Wang, Xiang Zhang, Haijian Zhang, Wen Yang, Jianzhuang Liu, and Gui-Song Xia. Learning to super- resolve blurry images with events.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 45(08):10027– 10043, 2023. 8

    2023

  66. [74]

    Rgb-event isp: The dataset and benchmark

    LU Yunfan, Yanlin Qian, Ziyang Rao, Junren Xiao, Lim- ing Chen, and Hui Xiong. Rgb-event isp: The dataset and benchmark. InThe Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. 6, 7

    2024

  67. [75]

    Rethinking noise synthesis and modeling in raw denois- ing

    Yi Zhang, Hongwei Qin, Xiaogang Wang, and Hongsheng Li. Rethinking noise synthesis and modeling in raw denois- ing. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Confer- ence on Computer Vision, pages 4593–4601, 2021. 2

    2021

  68. [76]

    V2ce: Video to continuous events simulator

    Zhongyang Zhang, Shuyang Cui, Kaidong Chai, Haowen Yu, Subhasis Dasgupta, Upal Mahbub, and Tauhidur Rah- man. V2ce: Video to continuous events simulator. InIn- ternational Conference on Robotics and Automation, pages 12455–12461. IEEE, 2024. 3

    2024

  69. [77]

    Eventgan: Leveraging large scale image datasets for event cameras

    Alex Zihao Zhu, Ziyun Wang, Kaung Khant, and Kostas Daniilidis. Eventgan: Leveraging large scale image datasets for event cameras. InIEEE International Conference on Computational Photography, pages 1–11. IEEE, 2021. 3

    2021

  70. [78]

    Eventhdr: From event to high-speed hdr videos and beyond.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Ma- chine Intelligence, 2024

    Yunhao Zou, Ying Fu, Tsuyoshi Takatani, and Yinqiang Zheng. Eventhdr: From event to high-speed hdr videos and beyond.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Ma- chine Intelligence, 2024. 1 11

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.