Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Ego-OSCAR: Egocentric Open source Stereo CAptuRe System

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a head-mounted stereo-inertial capture device with a bill of materials under USD 200, hardware-synchronized global-shutter stereo video, and an IMU aligned to video within about 700 microseconds can serve as a…

desk verdict A genuinely useful open-hardware/dataset paper that deserves a close look, provided the authors can show the STRB pin actually behaves as claimed. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08285 v2 pith:SPBDQ5I5 submitted 2026-08-08 cs.CV cs.ARcs.RO

Gunjan Paul , Senthil Palanisamy , Satpal Singh Rathore , Pratyush Kumar Patnaik , Shubhanshu Khatana , Abhishek Anand This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.ARcs.RO
keywords egocentricdatacollectionopen-sourcehardwarestereo-inertialcapturevisual-inertialsynchronizationtimeactioncaptioninghanddetectionlow-costdevice
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 large-scale egocentric data collection does not require expensive, closed research hardware: a head-mounted capture device assembled from off-the-shelf parts for under USD 200 can record hardware-synchronized global-shutter stereo video and 120 Hz inertial data, and the fully open design can be reproduced and extended by any team. The authors report building 13 such devices, deploying them across a contributor network, and releasing roughly 550 hours of video per camera (about 1,100 stereo camera-hours) from 1,462 sessions with per-session calibration, dense free-form action captions, and per-frame hand detections. A sympathetic reader would care because the result targets the data bottleneck in embodied AI: if the device works as claimed, the cheapest defensible capture substrate moves from a single laboratory instrument to a commodity toolkit. The paper is explicit that it validates the sensor package and deployment, not end-to-end policy gain, and that no ground-truth pose evaluation is included.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the hardware synchronization bridge built around the stereo camera's Start-of-Exposure (SoE) trigger output. The camera exposes a STRB pin that pulses on every frame exposure; this signal is wired into an ESP32 microcontroller interrupt, so each frame exposure is stamped with the ESP32's monotonic clock while the same microcontroller simultaneously samples the 6-axis IMU. Because the camera pipeline can drop or duplicate frames at startup, a blue LED mounted beside the lens is flashed on exactly the 60th interrupt and detected in the video to anchor interrupt counts to true frame indices; the remaining alignment is then deterministic. That bridge, together with the RK3588 single-board computer's hardware-accelerated MJPEG decode and H.264 encode, is what lets an under-USD-200 device produce synchronized stereo-inertial streams in the field.

What would settle it

Take a single released session and run the same camera–IMU offset test used in the paper on the shipped video and IMU CSV: if the residual lag is far above 700 microseconds, or if the 60th-interrupt LED flash cannot be located in the video, the synchronization claim is falsified. A second check is to assemble a device from the published bill of materials and verify that the ESP32 records an SoE interrupt for every video frame without dropouts at 30 FPS.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that Ego-OSCAR is a complete, open, low-cost answer to the question of how egocentric data should be captured at scale. The device pairs a hardware-synchronized global-shutter stereo camera (30 FPS, 1280×720 per eye, 126° field of view, 42 mm baseline) with a 6-axis IMU sampled at 120 Hz, an embedded Linux board that hardware-encodes the video stream, and a microcontroller that bridges the camera and IMU clock domains by timestamping every Start-of-Exposure pulse. An offline pass uses a blue LED flash wired to the 60th interrupt as a visual anchor to pin the interrupt stream to actual video frames; after this correction the residual visual-inertial lag is reported as about 700 microseconds, validated with an established camera–IMU calibration routine. The authors report a 96% usable-session rate across 1,462 sessions, 40+ environments, and 25 contributors, and release the corpus with dense free-form action segments covering essentially the full timeline and corpus-wide per-frame hand detections, alongside per-session stereo calibration. The paper's own framing is that Ego-OSCAR is not trying to match research-grade headset fidelity, but to be the cheapest defensible substrate for crowdsourced egocentric capture, and it states plainly that policy-training gains and ground-truth pose accuracy are not demonstrated.

Load-bearing premise

The whole synchronization argument rests on the stereo camera actually exposing a usable Start-of-Exposure signal on its STRB pin that the ESP32 can capture without dropouts, plus a blue-LED anchor flash that is detectable in typical video; if either fails, the claimed 700-microsecond alignment and the synchronized IMU traces do not hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Other teams can assemble the same device from the published bill of materials, CAD, and firmware, and extend it without proprietary silicon or custom PCBs.
  • A corpus of this size with per-session stereo calibration, dense free-form captions, and synchronized IMU can be used directly in visual-inertial odometry, stereo depth, and hand-object interaction pipelines.
  • Because the IMU sits on a standard I2C bus, the consumer-grade inertial unit can be swapped for a higher-grade part to reduce the dominant pose-error source without firmware redesign.
  • The 96% usable-session rate across distributed contributors suggests the watchdog and validation pipeline prevents silent data loss, which is what makes crowdsourced capture viable.
  • The long-tailed free-form caption layer (209,315 segments, 460 verbs, 32,630 object phrases) provides dense temporal supervision rather than clip-level tags for video-language and world-model training.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: If the sub-200-dollar sync claim holds, the practical bottleneck in egocentric data collection shifts from capture hardware to annotation and curation, because device replication is no longer the gate.
  • Editorial inference: A natural next experiment the paper does not run is to train a vision-language-action policy on Ego-OSCAR captures and compare against the same policy on existing corpora; the paper explicitly leaves that to future work.
  • Editorial inference: The blue-LED anchor could also be validated as a general low-cost sync approach for any camera without a hardware sync output, which would widen the scheme beyond this specific stereo module.
  • Editorial inference: Replacing the IMU on the same bus and re-running the camera–IMU offset test would quantify how much of the reported 12/20 visual-odometry convergence rate is due to the consumer-grade inertial noise floor.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents Ego-OSCAR, an open-hardware, head-mounted stereo-inertial capture device with a reported bill of materials near USD 200, together with a capture software stack and a released dataset of roughly 550 h per camera (1,462 stereo sessions) collected by 25 contributors. The device combines a Dexcin global-shutter stereo camera (hardware-synchronized left/right, 30 FPS, 1280×720 per eye) with a 120 Hz ICM-20948 IMU; synchronization is performed by an ESP32-S3 that timestamps the camera's Start-of-Exposure pulses via a STRB pin, and a blue-LED anchor pins the 60th interrupt to a video frame, yielding a claimed residual visual-inertial lag of 700 µs validated with Kalibr. The dataset ships per-session stereo calibration, 209,315 free-form action captions covering essentially the whole timeline, per-frame hand detections (94% frame-level detection rate), and synchronized IMU in 1,271 of 1,462 sessions. Evaluations report stereo calibration quality (sub-0.03 px reprojection, 0.4 px epipolar error), VINS-Fusion convergence on 12/20 held-out sequences, and a 96% usable-session rate. The authors are explicit about what they do not claim: no ground-truth pose, no ATE/RPE, no policy-training demonstration, and no hand-annotation accuracy.

Significance. If its synchronization chain is substantiated, this paper fills a real gap: no open, reproducible, head-mounted device currently provides hardware-synchronized stereo video and inertial data at this price point, since Project Aria is closed, GoPro-based rigs are unsynchronized and monocular, and smartphone approaches such as MobileEgo Anywhere forgo hardware stereo sync. The released corpus of roughly 550 h per camera with per-session calibration, dense open-vocabulary captions, and hand detections would be a useful community asset, and the release of CAD, firmware, and the full capture stack is a genuine reproducibility contribution. The manuscript also deserves explicit credit for disciplined claim handling: the 12/20 result is labeled a convergence rate rather than an accuracy result, the RealSense comparison is flagged as unfair, the absence of pose ground truth is stated plainly, and hardware durability problems are documented openly.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1.1 (HD1), §3.2 (CD3), §4.1] The 700 µs residual synchronization claim and the synchronized-IMU layer in 1,271 sessions rest on the unverified assumption that the Dexcin camera exposes a usable Start-of-Exposure signal on a STRB pin that the ESP32 samples without dropouts for entire sessions. The only support in the manuscript is the assertion in §3.1.1; Table 1 lists no part number and no datasheet is cited, and CD3 itself concedes that the camera pipeline occasionally drops or duplicates frames at startup. The single LED anchor at the 60th ISR cannot correct a drop or duplicate that occurs later in a session: one undetected frame shift is about 33 ms, roughly 47 times the claimed 700 µs residual, and Kalibr's constant-offset fit would absorb a broken correspondence rather than reveal it. The paper provides no scope trace, no pulse-to-frame count audit, and no description of the Kalibr procedure (sequence length, target, number of sessions, or whether 700 µs is an estimated offset or an independent residual). Please provide the camera datasheet or a scope capture of the STRB pin, a full-session pulse/frame correspondence audit or a re-synchronization mechanism for mid-session drop/duplicate events, and the details of the Kalibr validation.
  2. [§4.2 (At selection), §4.3, §A.3] The 94% frame-level hand-detection rate is computed over the released corpus, but §4.2 states that sessions entering the release are screened for hand visibility, so the statistic is conditional on a selection filter that already guarantees hand presence. As reported, it cannot support the conclusion in §4.3 that the 126° FOV and head-mounted geometry keep near-field hand–object interaction in frame for the large majority of recorded time, because that conclusion requires the detection rate on all captured, pre-screening sessions. Please report the detection rate before screening, or explicitly redefine the 94% as the rate on hand-screened sessions only.
  3. [Abstract vs. §4.3, §A.3] The abstract states that per-frame 3D hand reconstructions ship alongside per-session stereo calibration, but the body describes per-frame 2D hand detections, explicitly disclaims any hand-annotation ground truth, and never claims that 3D reconstruction is performed; the triangulation remark in §A.3 only notes what would be possible in principle given a calibrated pair. As printed, the abstract misdescribes the released annotation layer and should be corrected to say per-frame hand detections.
  4. [§5, §A.3, Table 2] The dense free-form action captions (209,315 segments, roughly 100% timeline coverage) are presented as a headline differentiator in Table 2, but the manuscript never describes how these captions were produced: there is no annotation protocol, no annotator instructions or tooling, no quality-control step, and no reliability measure on a sample. Because the captions are a core part of the dataset deliverable, this provenance gap should be filled with a protocol description and at least a sampled validation of caption accuracy or inter-annotator agreement.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§5, Table 1] The text promises the bill of materials with supplier part numbers, but Table 1 lists only generic component names; the Dexcin camera in particular has no part number, which directly affects the paper's reproducibility claim.
  2. [§4.1, §A.9] The sub-0.03 px per-camera reprojection error is unusually low for 720p consumer optics; please state whether this is an RMS or maximum value, the number of calibration images used, and whether the error is computed on held-out images.
  3. [§4.2, §4.4] The denominator of the 96% usable-session rate is ambiguous: clarify whether it is the fraction of all captured sessions or of sessions that already passed the selection screens described in §4.2.
  4. [§5, Table 5] The statement that roughly a third of labeled time falls outside cooking and dishwashing appears inconsistent with Table 5, in which the non-cooking and non-dishwashing families sum to roughly 273 h, about 50% of the 550 h total; please reconcile the figure or the table.
  5. [§4.3] For the RealSense comparison (15/20), clarify whether the same 20 sequences were evaluated or only matched environments and activities.
  6. [§A.3] Given 209,315 captions over roughly 550 h, the median caption span is about 9.5 s; calling these second-scale spans is somewhat generous, and the manuscript could report the actual median segment duration.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

One mild selection-conditioned statistic: the 94% hand-detection rate is computed on a corpus pre-screened for hand visibility, so it partly folds the screening criterion into the reported coverage. The central claims (700 µs sync residual, 550-hour yield, open-hardware BoM) are not circular.

  1. other [Section 4.2 (Quality Control) and Section 4.3 (Data Utility, Hand Detection)]
    "Sessions entering the release are screened for hand visibility, which is what makes the corpus consistently rich in hand–object interaction rather than merely long. ... it is the fraction of decoded video frames in which the detector returns at least one hand instance above its default confidence threshold, computed over the full corpus rather than a sample. By that definition the rate is 94%. ... 94% supports one narrow conclusion, that the 126° FOV and head-mounted geometry keep near-field hand–object interaction in frame for the large majority of recorded time."

    The corpus on which the hand-detection rate is computed is not a random sample of unconstrained egocentric capture; it is the subset of sessions already screened for hand visibility (Section 4.2). The 94% figure is therefore a property of a hand-enriched corpus, and using it to conclude that the FOV keeps hands in frame is conditioned on the same screening criterion that selected the data. The paper explicitly hedges the number as a coverage statistic with no manual ground truth, and this secondary metric does not underwrite the central device claims, so the circularity is mild rather than structural.

full rationale

No load-bearing derivation reduces the central claims to their inputs. The 700 µs residual visual-inertial lag is produced by the ESP32 SoE/IMU timestamp bridge and evaluated with the external Kalibr Cam-IMU offset test (Section 4.1), not fitted then renamed as a prediction. Stereo calibration uses a standard chessboard/pinhole pipeline with reported reprojection error. VINS-Fusion convergence, Allan-variance IMU noise, and SGBM/RAFT-Stereo depth are external benchmarks against which the dataset is tested. The only self-citation (MobileEgo Anywhere, [17]) is used as related-work comparison and is not load-bearing. The 550-hour yield is an operational self-report of deployment scale rather than a derived prediction, and the strongest caveated weakness (reliance on the Dexcin STRB/SoE pin and the LED-flash anchor for later-frame alignment) is a correctness/verification risk, not circularity. The one mild circular step is the hand-detection rate, which is computed over a corpus deliberately pre-screened for hand visibility; the paper's own caveats limit the damage, so the overall score is low.

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

The central claim rests on the hardware behaving as specified and on the released dataset matching the reported statistics. No free parameters are fitted in a derivation; the per-session calibration is standard camera calibration output. The main unresolved premise is that the SoE trigger from the Dexcin camera is reliably accessible and that the LED anchor is detectable in video.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Dexcin camera exposes a usable Start-of-Exposure signal on its STRB pin that the ESP32 can capture at 30 FPS without loss.
    The entire time-synchronization design in Section 3.1.1 and CD3 depends on this signal; no datasheet or validation is provided.
  • domain assumption The blue LED anchored to the 60th ISR event is detectable in the recorded video across sessions.
    Section 3.2 CD3: the offline pass pins the 60th interrupt to its true frame index by detecting this flash; failure of detectability would break the claimed residual sync of 700 microseconds.
  • domain assumption The contributor network and dataset statistics are as reported (550 hours, 1,462 sessions, 209,315 segments).
    These numbers are self-reported in Sections 4.4 and 5; no access mechanism is given in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ego-OSCAR: Egocentric Open source Stereo CAptuRe System." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SPBDQ5I5

@misc{pith2026260808285,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ego-OSCAR: Egocentric Open source Stereo CAptuRe System},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SPBDQ5I5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08285}
}
read the original abstract

We present Ego-OSCAR, an open-hardware, low-cost, head-mounted stereo-inertial capture device for egocentric data collection in the wild. EgoOSCAR pairs a hardware-synchronized global-shutter stereo camera with a 6- axis IMU, an embedded Linux SBC for on-device video encoding, and a realtime microcontroller for user feedback and watchdog functions. The complete bill of materials is under USD 200 per unit, using only commercially available components and 3D-printed parts. Alongside the device, we release a complete software stack (hardware-accelerated recording pipeline, IMU sampling daemon, time-synchronization tooling, and watchdog firmware) and roughly 550 hours of egocentric stereo video per camera with synchronized IMU, collected by a distributed contributor network across everyday indoor environments. The release is annotated rather than raw: free-form action captions cover essentially the entire recorded timeline with an open vocabulary, and per-frame 3D hand reconstructions ship alongside per-session stereo calibration. Ego-OSCAR does not aim to match the per-unit fidelity of research-grade systems such as Project Aria; it aims to be the cheapest defensible substrate for crowdsourced egocentric capture, and to lower the activation energy for any team that wants to collect egocentric data at scale. All hardware designs, software, and the dataset are open-sourced

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08285 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Open-source egocentric capture system [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System Overview: Hardware architecture. 3.1.1 HD1. Hardware-Synchronized Global-Shutter Stereo Camera We use a Dexcin USB stereo camera module: two Omnivision global-shutter sensors hardware￾synchronized through a single ASIC, exposing a single USB 2.0 endpoint to the host. The sensors capture at 30 FPS and 1280×720 px per camera, delivered as a single side-by-side stitched MJPEG frame. Per-sensor FOV is 126° and ba… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Data utility results. 4.4 Tier 3: Deployment Scale Across all sessions in the 6-month deployment, 96% produced usable data end-to-end. The three dominant failure modes were: (a) thermal shutdown during sessions exceeding 90 minutes above 35°C, resolved by adding the heatsink in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Task diversity in the Ego-OSCAR-550h dataset. Ego4D and EPIC-KITCHENS are monocular and rolling-shutter with no per-session calibration, while Ego-Exo4D and Nymeria inherit Project Aria’s suite of an RGB camera plus two monochrome SLAM cameras: excellent for tracking, …

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Zitkovich, T

    B. Zitkovich, T. Yu, S. Xu, P. Xu, T. Xiao, F. Xia, J. Wu, P. Wohlhart, S. Welker, A. Wahid, Q. Vuong, V . Vanhoucke, H. Tran, R. Soricut, A. Singh, J. Singh, P. Sermanet, P. R. San- keti, G. Salazar, M. S. Ryoo, K. Reymann, K. Rao, K. Pertsch, I. Mordatch, H. Michalewski, Y . Lu, S. Levine, L. Lee, T.-W. E. Lee, I. Leal, Y . Kuang, D. Kalashnikov, R. Jul...

    2023

  2. [2]

    M. J. Kim, K. Pertsch, S. Karamcheti, T. Xiao, A. Balakrishna, S. Nair, R. Rafailov, E. Foster, P. R. Sanketi, Q. Vuong, T. Kollar, B. Burchfiel, R. Tedrake, D. Sadigh, S. Levine, P. Liang, and C. Finn. OpenVLA: An open-source vision-language-action model. InProceedings of the 8th Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), volume 270 ofProceedings of Machine Le...

    2024

  3. [3]

    Ha and J

    D. Ha and J. Schmidhuber. Recurrent world models facilitate policy evolution. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31 (NeurIPS), pages 2455–2467, 2018

    2018

  4. [4]

    Tobin, R

    J. Tobin, R. Fong, A. Ray, J. Schneider, W. Zaremba, and P. Abbeel. Domain randomization for transferring deep neural networks from simulation to the real world. In2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 23–30. IEEE, 2017. doi:10.1109/IROS.2017.8202133. 10

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Kalashnikov, A

    D. Kalashnikov, A. Irpan, P. Pastor, J. Ibarz, A. Herzog, E. Jang, D. Quillen, E. Holly, M. Kalakrishnan, V . Vanhoucke, and S. Levine. Scalable deep reinforcement learning for vision-based robotic manipulation. InProceedings of the 2nd Conference on Robot Learning (CoRL), volume 87 ofProceedings of Machine Learning Research, pages 651–673. PMLR, 2018

    2018

  6. [6]

    C. Chi, Z. Xu, C. Pan, E. Cousineau, B. Burchfiel, S. Feng, R. Tedrake, and S. Song. Universal manipulation interface: In-the-wild robot teaching without in-the-wild robots. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2024. doi:10.15607/RSS.2024.XX.045

    doi:10.15607/rss.2024.xx.045 2024

  7. [7]

    C. Wang, H. Shi, W. Wang, R. Zhang, L. Fei-Fei, and C. K. Liu. DexCap: Scalable and portable mocap data collection system for dexterous manipulation. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2024. doi:10.15607/RSS.2024.XX.043

    doi:10.15607/rss.2024.xx.043 2024

  8. [8]

    Grauman, A

    K. Grauman, A. Westbury, E. Byrne, Z. Chavis, A. Furnari, R. Girdhar, J. Hamburger, H. Jiang, M. Liu, X. Liu, M. Martin, T. Nagarajan, I. Radosavovic, S. K. Ramakrishnan, F. Ryan, J. Sharma, M. Wray, M. Xu, E. Z. Xu, C. Zhao, S. Bansal, D. Batra, V . Cartillier, S. Crane, T. Do, M. Doulaty, A. Erapalli, C. Feichtenhofer, A. Fragomeni, Q. Fu, C. Fuegen, A....

    arXiv 2022

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Engel, K

    J. Engel, K. Somasundaram, M. Goesele, A. Sun, A. Gamino, A. Turner, A. Talattof, A. Yuan, B. Souti, B. Meredith, et al. Project aria: A new tool for egocentric multi-modal ai research. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13561, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Mur-Artal, J

    R. Mur-Artal, J. M. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tard ´os. ORB-SLAM: A versatile and accurate monocular SLAM system.IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 31(5):1147–1163, 2015. doi: 10.1109/TRO.2015.2463671

    2015

  3. [11]

    Grauman, A

    K. Grauman, A. Westbury, L. Torresani, K. Kitani, J. Malik, T. Afouras, K. Ashutosh, V . Baiyya, S. Bansal, B. Boote, E. Byrne, Z. Chavis, J. Chen, F. Cheng, F.-J. Chu, S. Crane, A. Dasgupta, J. Dong, M. Escobar, C. Forigua, A. Gebreselasie, S. Haresh, J. Huang, M. M. Islam, S...

    2024

  4. [12]

    Damen, H

    D. Damen, H. Doughty, G. M. Farinella, A. Furnari, E. Kazakos, J. Ma, D. Moltisanti, J. Munro, T. Perrett, W. Price, and M. Wray. Rescaling egocentric vision: Collection, pipeline and challenges for EPIC-KITCHENS-100.International Journal of Computer Vision, 130(1): 33–55, 202...

    2022 doi

  5. [13]

    Z. Lv, N. Charron, P. Moulon, A. Gamino, C. Peng, C. Sweeney, E. Miller, H. Tang, J. Meiss- ner, J. Dong, K. Somasundaram, L. Pesqueira, M. Schwesinger, O. Parkhi, Q. Gu, R. De Nardi, S. Cheng, S. Saarinen, V . Baiyya, Y . Zou, R. Newcombe, J. J. Engel, X. Pan, and C. Ren. Ari...

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    L. Ma, Y . Ye, F. Hong, V . Guzov, Y . Jiang, R. Postyeni, L. Pesqueira, A. Gamino, V . Baiyya, H. J. Kim, K. Bailey, D. S. Fosas, C. K. Liu, Z. Liu, J. Engel, R. De Nardi, and R. New- combe. Nymeria: A massive collection of multimodal egocentric daily motion in the wild. InEu...

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    Rhodin, C

    H. Rhodin, C. Richardt, D. Casas, E. Insafutdinov, M. Shafiei, H.-P. Seidel, B. Schiele, and C. Theobalt. Egocap: Egocentric marker-less motion capture with two fisheye cameras. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 35(6):162:1–162:11, November 2016. doi:10.1145/2980179. 2980235

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    M. Shi, S. Peng, J. Chen, H. Jiang, T. Li, D. Huang, P. Luo, H. Li, and L. Chen. EgoHu- manoid: Unlocking in-the-wild loco-manipulation with robot-free egocentric demonstration. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2026. arXiv:2602.10106

    2026 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Palanisamy, A

    S. Palanisamy, A. Anand, S. S. Rathore, P. Patnaik, S. Khatana, and E. Janweja. MobileEgo Anywhere: Open infrastructure for long-horizon egocentric data on commodity hardware. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.05945, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  10. [18]

    T. Z. Zhao, V . Kumar, S. Levine, and C. Finn. Learning fine-grained bimanual manipulation with low-cost hardware. InRobotics: Science and Systems (RSS), 2023. doi:10.15607/RSS. 2023.XIX.016

    2023 doi

  11. [19]

    Z. Fu, T. Z. Zhao, and C. Finn. Mobile aloha: Learning bimanual mobile manipulation us- ing low-cost whole-body teleoperation. InConference on Robot Learning, pages 4066–4083. PMLR, 2025

    2025

  12. [20]

    Schubert, N

    D. Schubert, N. Demmel, L. von Stumberg, V . Usenko, and D. Cremers. Rolling-shutter mod- elling for direct visual-inertial odometry. In2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on In- telligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 2462–2469. IEEE, 2019. doi:10.1109/IROS40897. 2019.8968539

    2019

  13. [21]

    Furgale, J

    P. Furgale, J. Rehder, and R. Siegwart. Unified temporal and spatial calibration for multi- sensor systems. In2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 1280–1286. IEEE, 2013. doi:10.1109/IROS.2013.6696514

    2013

  14. [22]

    Z. Zhang. A flexible new technique for camera calibration.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 22(11):1330–1334, 2000. doi:10.1109/34.888718

    doi

  15. [23]

    Hirschm ¨uller

    H. Hirschm ¨uller. Stereo processing by semiglobal matching and mutual information.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 30(2):328–341, 2008. doi:10. 1109/TPAMI.2007.1166

    2008

  16. [24]

    Lipson, Z

    L. Lipson, Z. Teed, and J. Deng. RAFT-Stereo: Multilevel recurrent field transforms for stereo matching. InInternational Conference on 3D Vision (3DV), pages 218–227, 2021. doi:10. 1109/3DV53792.2021.00032

    2021

  17. [25]

    El-Sheimy, H

    N. El-Sheimy, H. Hou, and X. Niu. Analysis and modeling of inertial sensors using Allan variance.IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement, 57(1):140–149, 2008. doi:10.1109/TIM.2007.908635

    2008

  18. [26]

    T. Qin, J. Pan, S. Cao, and S. Shen. A general optimization-based framework for local odom- etry estimation with multiple sensors.arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.03638, 2019. 12 A Released Dataset: Detailed Description This appendix gives the full description of the Ego-OSCAR-550h d...

    1901 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.