Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 33 references

Quantitative evaluation of brain-inspired vision sensors in high-speed robotic perception

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Event cameras degrade in high-speed clutter; Tianmouc does not.

desk verdict Useful first cross-BVS benchmark, but the hardware-level conclusion is undercut by an algorithm confound and missing reproducibility data. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.19253 v1 pith:3K2KP6SJ submitted 2025-04-27 cs.RO cs.CV

Taoyi Wang , Lijian Wang , Yihan Lin , Mingtao Ou , Yuguo Chen , Xinglong Ji , Rong Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.CV
keywords brain-inspiredvisionsensorsevent-basedTianmouchigh-speedroboticperceptionmotionblurcornerdetectionopticalflowsensorbenchmarking
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

Brain-inspired vision sensors promise high temporal resolution for robots, but there has been no standard way to compare them fairly. This paper builds that standard—a calibrated turntable, printed ground-truth patterns, motion-compensated event calibration, and shared imaging and perception metrics—and uses it to compare an event camera, an RGB-hybrid event camera, and the primitive-based Tianmouc chip. Its central finding is that event-based sensors keep their accuracy in fast sparse scenes and in moderately fast complex scenes, but lose structural information in high-speed cluttered scenes because pixel-level bandwidth varies and event output saturates. Tianmouc, which samples both temporal and spatial differences synchronously at up to 1515 frames per second, keeps stable structural metrics, corner detection, and motion estimation across speeds and scene complexity. If the finding holds, choosing a vision sensor for high-speed robots becomes a scenario-dependent decision rather than a one-class verdict.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by a side-by-side comparison of two data modalities. Event cameras are modeled by the event generation condition $\Delta L(x_k,y_k,t_k)=p_k C$, so a pixel emits an asynchronous event only when log-intensity crosses a contrast threshold; this is the mechanism that, under load, saturates and loses structure. Tianmouc's AOP instead computes multi-bit temporal difference $TD(x,y,t)=I(x,y,t)-I(x,y,t-1)$ and spatial differences such as $SD_{\mathrm{LeftDir}}(x,y,t)=I(x,y,t)-I(x-1,y-1,t)$ on a synchronous global shutter at up to 1515 fps, giving direct spatial-gradient output that does not wait for temporal contrast events. Around that comparison, the paper builds a unified evaluation platform—a turntable with adjustable rotation speed, printed patterns as ground truth, motion-compensated event warping using rotation speed as flow ground truth, and shared metrics (edge thickness, GM/TSS/VAR/GradVar, BRISQUE, corner F1, angular-velocity error)—so that differences in these metrics are attributed to the sensing scheme.

What would settle it

Re-run the turntable protocol on a cluttered QR pattern using an event camera's raw streams but with the most recent learned corner and optical-flow algorithms in place of ARC* and EV-FlowNet; if event-camera F1 and angular-velocity error no longer decline with speed, the central claim that EVS intrinsically degrades in high-speed clutter is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that, under a unified turntable-based protocol with motion-compensated calibration, event-based vision sensors (EVS) preserve data fidelity in high-speed, sparse scenes and in moderately fast, complex scenes, but degrade sharply in high-speed, cluttered scenes. The degradation is traced to pixel-level bandwidth variation under low light and to event-rate saturation when the on-chip bus is overloaded by dense features, and it shows up in edge thickness, structural-information metrics (GM, TSS, VAR, GradVar), BRISQUE reconstruction scores, and corner-detection F1. By contrast, Tianmouc's action-oriented pathway, which synchronously samples multi-bit temporal differences and spatial differences at up to 1515 fps with a global shutter, maintains stable structural metrics, corner detection, and angular-velocity estimation across sparse and complex scenes and across speeds. The paper presents this as evidence that sensor choice for high-speed robotics should depend on scene complexity and speed, and that Tianmouc's spatiotemporal-gradient sampling is a robust alternative where event cameras saturate.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the post-processing algorithms paired with each sensor are representative enough that performance differences reflect sensor hardware rather than algorithmic maturity—Tianmouc is processed with the authors' own reconstruction, interpolation, and optical-flow code, while event cameras are processed with fixed third-party tools.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For high-speed robots operating in sparse scenes, an event camera remains a low-bandwidth, low-power choice because its corner and flow accuracy holds when few features compete for event bandwidth.
  • In high-speed cluttered scenes, event-based pipelines should not be assumed robust: the paper measures sharp drops in structural metrics and corner-detection F1 as rotation speed rises.
  • Tianmouc's AOP-SD mode offers an alternative for those conditions, with F1 near 0.7 across 50–500 rpm and stable angular-velocity estimates at high speed.
  • When an event camera must be used at high speed, widening the temporal integration window can recover motion estimation, but at the cost of extra latency.
  • The evaluation protocol itself—turntable ground truth, motion-compensated calibration, and normalized structural metrics—can be reused to benchmark future brain-inspired sensors.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to rerun the same turntable protocol with newer learned event-based corner detectors and optical-flow networks; if those close the gap with Tianmouc in the cluttered high-speed regime, part of the reported advantage belongs to software, not to the AOP sampling scheme.
  • The paper's own discussion implies that in low-light and ultra-high-speed conditions every tested sensor blurs because of pixel sensitivity; pushing the protocol into those regimes could narrow or invert Tianmouc's advantage.
  • Because the paper normalizes structural metrics to low-speed values, an absolute reference—say, a global-shutter frame camera on the same turntable—could turn these relative comparisons into a calibration-style standard for brain-inspired sensors.
  • A simpler design rule follows: any sensor that outputs spatial differences directly (gradients) should be less sensitive to edges aligned with the direction of motion than a purely temporal-contrast sensor; this can be isolated by rotating a pattern with edges parallel to motion and comparing TD-only and SD-only streams from the same chip.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a quantitative evaluation framework for comparing brain-inspired vision sensors in high-speed robotic perception. Three sensors are tested under controlled turntable rotation (50–3000 rpm) and two illumination levels: the event-based DVXplorer, the RGB-hybrid DAVIS346, and the primitive-based Tianmouc sensor. The evaluation covers imaging quality (edge thickness, structural-information metrics, BRISQUE on reconstructed frames) and functional tasks (corner detection, optical-flow-based angular-velocity estimation). The main claim is that EVS performs well in sparse high-speed scenes and moderately fast complex scenes, but degrades in high-speed cluttered scenes due to pixel-level bandwidth variation and event-rate saturation, whereas Tianmouc maintains consistent performance across all tested speeds and scene complexities due to its global spatiotemporal-gradient sampling.

Significance. If the central claim is established, the paper provides a useful, scenario-dependent sensor-selection guide for high-speed robotics and introduces a reusable evaluation methodology that bridges different BVS data modalities. The controlled turntable setup with ground-truth rotation speeds, the motion-compensated event calibration, and the use of multiple complementary metrics are genuine strengths. The paper is also candid in Section VI about the immaturity of Tianmouc software and the rapid development of event algorithms. However, the headline conclusion is sensor-level, and the current protocol does not adequately separate sensor hardware characteristics from the particular post-processing algorithms paired with each sensor. The absence of error bars and direct measurements of the proposed degradation mechanisms further weakens the causal claims. The framework is a promising contribution, but the central claim requires additional control experiments before it is fully supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section V.B, Section IV.E, Tables I–III] The comparison protocol is asymmetric in a load-bearing way. Tianmouc is evaluated with the authors' own reconstruction, interpolation, and optical-flow code (refs. [2], [27], [28]), including dynamically adjusted sampling intervals that align with rotation increments exceeding 1 degree, whereas the event cameras use fixed third-party tools (ARC*, EV-FlowNet, E2VID, TimeLens) with fixed integration windows of 1.5 and 15 degrees. The observed gap could therefore reflect algorithmic maturity or tuning rather than sensor hardware. The paper acknowledges in Section VI that event algorithms are advancing and that Tianmouc software is immature, but it does not provide any sensitivity analysis or crossover experiment. I request a matched-algorithm evaluation: for example, feeding AOP-SD data through an event-based corner or flow algorithm, or sweeping the event integration windows and using more recent event-based algorithms, to show that the performance difference survives when algorithm choice is controlled.
  2. [Figures 4–6 and Tables I–III] No error bars, trial counts, or statistical tests are reported anywhere in the quantitative evaluation. Several comparisons show small differences (for example, F1 scores of 0.579 vs. 0.720 at 100 rpm in Table III), and without variance estimates or repeated trials it is impossible to determine whether the reported differences are significant. For a paper whose contribution is a quantitative evaluation framework, reporting the number of repeated runs and confidence intervals or performing a significance test is essential.
  3. [Section VI, Section IV.D] The causal attribution of EVS degradation to 'pixel bandwidth variation' and 'event rate saturation' is inferred rather than directly demonstrated. The DVXplorer ROI experiment is suggestive, but the paper never reports measured event rates, dropped events, pixel latency, or bus utilization. Please provide direct measurements or controlled manipulations that isolate these mechanisms, or alternatively reframe the conclusions as consistent hypotheses rather than established causes.
  4. [Section V.A] The definition of ground truth for corner detection needs clarification. The text states that detected corners are matched against ground-truth corner positions 'obtained using the Shi-Tomasi algorithms on original images.' It is unclear what 'original images' refers to for each sensor, whether the same ground-truth set is used across sensors, and whether using the same detector family for both Tianmouc and ground truth biases the comparison. Please specify the ground-truth source precisely and, if possible, use fixed printed-pattern coordinates as ground truth.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section IV.C] The edge-thickness metric is described as 'the peak width (from maximum intensity to near zero)' but the exact threshold and computation procedure are not specified; please provide a precise definition.
  2. [Tables I–III] The N.A. entries for DAVIS346 at 300 rpm and above are unexplained; a footnote should state why no values are reported.
  3. [Figures 4–6] Several subfigures lack clear axis labels and legend identifiers, and the difference between panels (a), (b), (c), and (d) is not always obvious; please improve the figure captions and panel labels.
  4. [Section V.B] The phrase 'the approach described in [2]' is too vague for a quantitative comparison; please specify the optical-flow algorithm, its hyperparameters, and the exact dynamic-frame-interval rule used for Tianmouc.
  5. [General] The paper does not include a data-availability statement; for a benchmark-oriented contribution, releasing the recorded sensor data and evaluation code would substantially aid reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation; the comparison is empirical, though the sensor/algorithm pairing asymmetry is a validity risk rather than circularity.

full rationale

The paper does not derive any quantity from another by construction. Its conclusions about EVS degradation in high-speed cluttered scenes and Tianmouc robustness are drawn from direct measurements on a turntable with printed patterns, ground-truth rotation speeds, and defined metrics. No fitted parameter is later renamed as a prediction, no equation reduces to its own input, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from prior work. The self-citations to the Tianmouc sensor [2] and its processing code [27] are used as the concrete implementation being tested, not as an external authority that forces the experimental outcome. The protocol does pair Tianmouc with the authors' own reconstruction, interpolation, and optical-flow algorithms while event cameras use fixed third-party tools, and Section VI itself admits that algorithms for both sensor classes remain immature and that future work should evaluate 'more representative algorithms.' That asymmetry is a legitimate concern about whether the comparison isolates sensor hardware from software maturity, but it is not circularity in the sense defined here: the result is not equivalent to its inputs by definition, and no self-citation chain supplies the load-bearing content. The benchmark is self-contained empirical evidence, so the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim has no fitted mathematical constants; the comparison rests on hand-chosen experimental configurations (temporal windows, filter radius, ROI, sampling settings) and on standard event-sensor modeling assumptions. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • Event accumulation window for corner detection = 1.5 degrees of pattern rotation
    Set in Section V.A; determines how many events feed ARC*. It is hand-chosen and affects the number of corners detected, especially at high speed.
  • Optical flow integration windows = 1.5 and 15 degrees for events; >1 degree adaptively for Tianmouc
    Set in Section V.B; asymmetric temporal windows across sensor types can bias the relative motion estimation errors.
  • Corner redundancy filter radius = 3 pixels
    Section V.A; used to collapse multiple ARC* corner events per physical corner; precision/recall and F1 depend on this threshold.
  • DVXplorer ROI reduction = reduced to match other cameras' resolution (exact value not stated)
    Section IV.A; introduced to mitigate scan-pattern distortion. Changing the ROI changes event load and likely improves DVXplorer's structural results relative to full-frame mode.
  • Tianmouc sampling configuration = 0.4 ms exposure at 1515 fps (high light); at least 1 ms at 757 fps (low light)
    Section IV.A; the claim that Tianmouc is speed-robust is conditional on these chosen exposure and frame-rate settings.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Event cameras trigger events when the log-intensity change reaches a contrast threshold (Eq. 1).
    Standard event camera model from ref [1]; used as the representation basis for comparing event data.
  • domain assumption Events from moving edges follow an approximation involving the spatial gradient and velocity (Eq. 2).
    Used to justify motion-compensated warping of events; if the approximation fails, the calibration is inaccurate.
  • domain assumption Turntable rotation speed is an accurate optical flow ground truth for warping events.
    Used in Section IV.B for motion compensation; off-axis motion, lens distortion, or speed error would corrupt the reconstructed edge images.
  • domain assumption BRISQUE is a valid no-reference quality proxy for reconstructed intensity frames across sensor modalities.
    Section IV.E; BRISQUE is a general NR-IQA metric trained on natural images, and applying it to reconstructed event/AOP-SD frames may not compare modalities fairly.
  • domain assumption Normalizing structural indicators by the lowest-speed value makes indicators comparable across cameras.
    Section IV.D; this removes absolute scale and assumes relative degradation is the meaningful quantity, which may hide absolute quality differences.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantitative evaluation of brain-inspired vision sensors in high-speed robotic perception." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3K2KP6SJ

@misc{pith2026250419253,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantitative evaluation of brain-inspired vision sensors in high-speed robotic perception},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3K2KP6SJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.19253}
}
read the original abstract

Perception systems in robotics encounter significant challenges in high-speed and dynamic conditions when relying on traditional cameras, where motion blur can compromise spatial feature integrity and task performance. Brain-inspired vision sensors (BVS) have recently gained attention as an alternative, offering high temporal resolution with reduced bandwidth and power requirements. Here, we present the first quantitative evaluation framework for two representative classes of BVSs in variable-speed robotic sensing, including event-based vision sensors (EVS) that detect asynchronous temporal contrasts, and the primitive-based sensor Tianmouc that employs a complementary mechanism to encode both spatiotemporal changes and intensity. A unified testing protocol is established, including crosssensor calibrations, standardized testing platforms, and quality metrics to address differences in data modality. From an imaging standpoint, we evaluate the effects of sensor non-idealities, such as motion-induced distortion, on the capture of structural information. For functional benchmarking, we examine task performance in corner detection and motion estimation under different rotational speeds. Results indicate that EVS performs well in highspeed, sparse scenarios and in modestly fast, complex scenes, but exhibits performance limitations in high-speed, cluttered settings due to pixel-level bandwidth variations and event rate saturation. In comparison, Tianmouc demonstrates consistent performance across sparse and complex scenarios at various speeds, supported by its global, precise, high-speed spatiotemporal gradient samplings. These findings offer valuable insights into the applicationdependent suitability of BVS technologies and support further advancement in this area.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.19253 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) A typical high-speed robot platform. (b) Challenges of motion [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our work. (a) Visualization of difference in data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Evaluation methods for imaging quality of BVS. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Evaluation of motion blur using thickness as the indicator under (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Evaluation of structural information indicators under (a) low illumination and (b) high illumination. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The evaluation of BRISQUE on grayscale intensity reconstruction from event or AOPSD is shown in (a) for low illumination and (b) for high Feature detection and GT alignment method 300 N.A. 0 400 N.A. 0 500 NA0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Corner detection evaluation procedure. (a) for Tianmouc and (b) for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a) The optical flow is masked by a ring for calculation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages

  1. [2]

    A vision chip with complementary pathways for open-world sensing,

    Z. Yang, T. Wang, Y . Lin, Y . Chen, H. Zeng, J. Pei, J. Wang, X. Liu, Y . Zhou, J. Zhang et al. , “A vision chip with complementary pathways for open-world sensing,” Nature, vol. 629, no. 8014, pp. 1027–1033, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [27]

    Code of

    T. Wang, “Code of ”a vision chip with complementary pathways for open-world sensing”,” Mar. 2024. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10775253

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.10775253 2024

  3. [28]

    Poisson matting,

    J. Sun, J. Jia, C.-K. Tang, and H.-Y . Shum, “Poisson matting,” ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) , vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 315–321, 2004

    work page 2004

  4. [1]

    Event- based vision: A survey,

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

    2020

  5. [3]

    Evk4 hd camera manual,

    Prophesee, “Evk4 hd camera manual,” https://www.prophesee.ai/wp- content/uploads/2023/01/EVK4-HD-Prophesee-Evaluation-Kit-Camera- Manual-1.1.pdf

    work page 2023

  6. [4]

    Specifications – current models,

    iniVation, “Specifications – current models,” https://inivation.com/wp- content/uploads/2021/08/2021-08-iniVation-devices-Specifications.pdf

    work page 2021

  7. [5]

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

    C. Brandli, R. Berner, M. Yang, S.-C. Liu, and T. Delbruck, “A 240 × 180 130 db 3 µs latency global shutter spatiotemporal vision sensor,” IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits , vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 2333–2341, 2014

    2014

  8. [6]

    Specifications – davis 346,

    iniVation, “Specifications – davis 346,” https://inivation.com/wp- content/uploads/2023/03/DA VIS346.pdf

    work page 2023

Show all 33 references
  1. [7]

    Microsaccade-inspired event camera for robotics,

    B. He, Z. Wang, Y . Zhou, J. Chen, C. D. Singh, H. Li, Y . Gao, S. Shen, K. Wang, Y . Cao et al. , “Microsaccade-inspired event camera for robotics,” Science Robotics , vol. 9, no. 90, p. eadj8124, 2024

    2024

  2. [8]

    Emva 1288 standard for machine vision: Objective specifica- tion of vital camera data,

    B. J ¨ahne, “Emva 1288 standard for machine vision: Objective specifica- tion of vital camera data,” Optik & Photonik , vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 53–54, 2010

    2010

  3. [9]

    A comparison between framed-based and event-based cameras for flapping-wing robot perception,

    R. Tapia, J. P. Rodr ´ıguez-G´omez, J. A. Sanchez-Diaz, F. J. Ga ˜n´an, I. G. Rodr´ıguez, J. Luna-Santamaria, J. Mart ´ınez-De Dios, and A. Ollero, “A comparison between framed-based and event-based cameras for flapping-wing robot perception,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Co...

    2023

  4. [10]

    Experimental comparison between event and global shutter cameras,

    O. Hole ˇsovsk`y, R. ˇSkoviera, V . Hlav´aˇc, and R. Vitek, “Experimental comparison between event and global shutter cameras,” Sensors, vol. 21, no. 4, p. 1137, 2021

    2021

  5. [11]

    v2e: From video frames to realistic dvs events,

    Y . Hu, S.-C. Liu, and T. Delbruck, “v2e: From video frames to realistic dvs events,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2021, pp. 1312–1321

    2021

  6. [12]

    Are high-resolution event cameras really needed?

    D. Gehrig and D. Scaramuzza, “Are high-resolution event cameras really needed?” arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.14672 , 2022

    2022 arXiv

  7. [13]

    Latency correction for event-guided deblurring and frame interpolation,

    Y . Yang, J. Liang, B. Yu, Y . Chen, J. S. Ren, and B. Shi, “Latency correction for event-guided deblurring and frame interpolation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2024, pp. 24 977–24 986

    2024

  8. [14]

    Deblur e-nerf: Nerf from motion-blurred events under high-speed or low-light conditions,

    W. F. Low and G. H. Lee, “Deblur e-nerf: Nerf from motion-blurred events under high-speed or low-light conditions,” in European Confer- ence on Computer Vision . Springer, 2024, pp. 192–209

    2024

  9. [15]

    Eklt: Asyn- chronous photometric feature tracking using events and frames,

    D. Gehrig, H. Rebecq, G. Gallego, and D. Scaramuzza, “Eklt: Asyn- chronous photometric feature tracking using events and frames,” Inter- national Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 128, no. 3, pp. 601–618, 2020

    2020

  10. [16]

    Evreal: Towards a comprehensive benchmark and analysis suite for event-based video re- construction,

    B. Ercan, O. Eker, A. Erdem, and E. Erdem, “Evreal: Towards a comprehensive benchmark and analysis suite for event-based video re- construction,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 3942–3951

    2023

  11. [17]

    E-mlb: Multilevel benchmark for event-based camera denoising,

    S. Ding, J. Chen, Y . Wang, Y . Kang, W. Song, J. Cheng, and Y . Cao, “E-mlb: Multilevel benchmark for event-based camera denoising,” IEEE Transactions on Multimedia , 2023

    2023

  12. [18]

    Eventaid: Benchmarking event-aided image/video enhancement algorithms with real-captured hybrid dataset,

    P. Duan, B. Li, Y . Yang, H. Lou, M. Teng, Y . Ma, and B. Shi, “Eventaid: Benchmarking event-aided image/video enhancement algorithms with real-captured hybrid dataset,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.08220 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Action recognition and benchmark using event cameras,

    Y . Gao, J. Lu, S. Li, N. Ma, S. Du, Y . Li, and Q. Dai, “Action recognition and benchmark using event cameras,” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence , 2023

    2023

  14. [20]

    Event stream-based visual object tracking: A high-resolution bench- mark dataset and a novel baseline,

    X. Wang, S. Wang, C. Tang, L. Zhu, B. Jiang, Y . Tian, and J. Tang, “Event stream-based visual object tracking: A high-resolution bench- mark dataset and a novel baseline,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2024, pp. 19 248–19 257

    2024

  15. [21]

    Movement detection with event-based cameras: comparison with frame-based cameras in robot object tracking using powerlink communication,

    J. Barrios-Avil ´es, T. Iakymchuk, J. Samaniego, L. D. Medus, and A. Rosado-Mu ˜noz, “Movement detection with event-based cameras: comparison with frame-based cameras in robot object tracking using powerlink communication,” Electronics, vol. 7, no. 11, p. 304, 2018

    2018

  16. [22]

    A power-performance approach to comparing sensor families, with application to comparing neuromorphic to traditional vision sensors,

    A. Censi, E. Mueller, E. Frazzoli, and S. Soatto, “A power-performance approach to comparing sensor families, with application to comparing neuromorphic to traditional vision sensors,” in 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2015, pp. 3319–3326

    2015

  17. [23]

    A unifying contrast maximization framework for event cameras, with applications to motion, depth, and optical flow estimation,

    G. Gallego, H. Rebecq, and D. Scaramuzza, “A unifying contrast maximization framework for event cameras, with applications to motion, depth, and optical flow estimation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE confer- ence on computer vision and pattern recognition , 2018, pp. 3867–3876

    2018

  18. [24]

    Moveenet: online high-frequency human pose estimation with an event camera,

    G. Goyal, F. Di Pietro, N. Carissimi, A. Glover, and C. Bartolozzi, “Moveenet: online high-frequency human pose estimation with an event camera,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , 2023, pp. 4024–4033

    2023

  19. [25]

    Analysis of encoding degradation in spiking sensors due to spike delay variation,

    M. Yang, S.-C. Liu, and T. Delbruck, “Analysis of encoding degradation in spiking sensors due to spike delay variation,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Regular Papers , vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 145–155, 2016

    2016

  20. [26]

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

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

    1964

  21. [29]

    Time lens: Event-based video frame interpolation,

    S. Tulyakov, D. Gehrig, S. Georgoulis, J. Erbach, M. Gehrig, Y . Li, and D. Scaramuzza, “Time lens: Event-based video frame interpolation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2021, pp. 16 155–16 164

    2021

  22. [30]

    No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain,

    A. Mittal, A. K. Moorthy, and A. C. Bovik, “No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain,” IEEE Transactions on image processing, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 4695–4708, 2012

    2012

  23. [31]

    Good features to track,

    J. Shi et al. , “Good features to track,” in 1994 Proceedings of IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . IEEE, 1994, pp. 593–600

    1994

  24. [32]

    Asynchronous corner detection and tracking for event cameras in real time,

    I. Alzugaray and M. Chli, “Asynchronous corner detection and tracking for event cameras in real time,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 3177–3184, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

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

    A. Z. Zhu and L. Yuan, “Ev-flownet: Self-supervised optical flow estimation for event-based cameras,” in Robotics: Science and Systems , 2018

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.